From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Thu Jan  1 00:12:29 2009
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 17:12:29 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Obama Transition Team Examining Space Solar Power
In-Reply-To: <c49b1db60812291944q51171c8csc3dd7fc5bab1c0a7@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.123.1230343026.96.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<4956A61D.4000708@lineone.net>
	<9ff585550812272107s5fa80dbek6fc13219d7588971@mail.gmail.com>
	<d1988d2d0812281610u423ef3d4i4dc32a95234dd78c@mail.gmail.com>
	<9ff585550812282052va13bc55nfa0b3dd1b69b811@mail.gmail.com>
	<d1988d2d0812291804s74cc7e14n5ff104e50b759260@mail.gmail.com>
	<0178889E382A4866831E992DE5CC21CC@spike>
	<c49b1db60812291944q51171c8csc3dd7fc5bab1c0a7@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d1988d2d0812311612u18983567n1b26aae05db8ff6c@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Kevin H <kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 7:26 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>
>> It has been repeatedly demonstrated that lifting stuff to orbit is waaay
>> more difficult than it appears to be.  Never mind all the super tricky
>> station placing that satellites require, just the control systems
>> engineering required to keep a rocket flying pointy end first is a
>> daunting
>> engineering problem.  It would surely require the cooperation of an actual
>> government in the next twenty to fifty years.
>>
>> A secret launch is now completely impossible.  If a malicious group
>> launched
>> a counter-orbiting truckload of sand, that act is a declaration of war
>> against every nation that has anything in LEO, which is a lotta smart,
>> capable and mean countries, all of which have nukes and the means to
>> deliver
>> them to one's house if provoked.
>>
>> Attacking anything in GEO would be exceedingly and reassuringly difficult
>> for a terrorist group, even a well funded one.
>>
>> spike
>
> Is it possible to construct a laser or other beam weapon that can/could
> disable a SPS (or other artificial satellite) in orbit?  If that's ruled
> out, then I'm not worried.

It's possible, not even technically hard after we have power sats up,
but such a laser is huge and *very* expensive..  Figure at least a GW
output, 2 GW electrical input.  2GW is the output of Hover Dam.  The
laser would cost around $10 billion.  I.e., it's way out of the range
of terrorists as we know them today.

We do have to worry about diversion of a propulsion laser.  There is
no possibility that OBL's operation could have bought one passenger
jet, much less 4 of them, but they still crashed 3 of the 4 they
hijacked into buildings.

It wouldn't be easy though.  There would not be training centers for
laser operators like there was for 767/757 aircraft.

> But, if anything, a supremely vast supply of energy would *ease*
> international tensions, not create them, at least in the long term.  Ideally
> the current space powers would share their capabilities to assist in
> launching SPS's for other countries; but realistically, if they don't, there
> could be serious problems.  I just think it would be in everyone's interest
> to share.

The best would be for the power sats construction company to be
international, financed by private and (perhaps) government money.
It's not entirely obvious that the construction company and the
transportation company should be the same organization, but they might
be.

Keith

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


From spike66 at att.net  Thu Jan  1 03:17:44 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 19:17:44 -0800
Subject: [ExI] a book of possible interest
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670812301933v65b70ad8of064b441f33da917@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20081230152701.022e3be0@satx.rr.com><2d6187670812301833p13436bbbtd8069db2489b6fd8@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20081230203939.022c3a30@satx.rr.com>
	<2d6187670812301933v65b70ad8of064b441f33da917@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <46DD00CA28CA441B8CF87CFCE7FF74EE@spike>

 
 Behalf Of John Grigg

...I've heard some horror stories from people who were tv writers and saw
their work ravaged...John
	
	
	
John, in fiction the reader often takes something away from the story that
was *completely* unrelated to the main point of the work.  It might be some
minor character with whom the reader connects, or some tangent aspect.  Case
in point: as a teenager I read Bridge to Terabithia, which was an excellent
book.  It is about how kids deal with death and sorrow, or rather I think
that was the main point.  A couple of kids would go across a stream to their
fantasy place, (plenty of complex human emotional interactions, mostly
beyond my modest ability to understand normal humans) but they used an old
rope swing to get across, rope fails, child falls, perishes, remaining
adolescent decides to build an actual bridge across the stream to honor her
memory.

I recently designed and built a bridge over a stream on the Oregon ranch.  I
thought often of that book while taking on the daunting responsibility of
designing something that could slay a prole should it fail catastrophically.
I have half a mind to write to Katherine Paterson, the author of Bridge to
Terabithia, and tell her that her work inspired a beautiful bridge to a
really nice patch of old growth forest in Oregon that my folks and I have
nicknamed Terabithia.  Even though the story wasn't about building sturdy
bridges, I suspect she would like that.

Are there any other Bridge to Terabithia fans present?  I haven't seen
either of the movies based on the book.  Perhaps they screwed it in an
upward direction?

spike




	




From spike66 at att.net  Thu Jan  1 04:06:58 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 20:06:58 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Obama Transition Team Examining Space Solar Power
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d0812311612u18983567n1b26aae05db8ff6c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.123.1230343026.96.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><4956A61D.4000708@lineone.net><9ff585550812272107s5fa80dbek6fc13219d7588971@mail.gmail.com><d1988d2d0812281610u423ef3d4i4dc32a95234dd78c@mail.gmail.com><9ff585550812282052va13bc55nfa0b3dd1b69b811@mail.gmail.com><d1988d2d0812291804s74cc7e14n5ff104e50b759260@mail.gmail.com><0178889E382A4866831E992DE5CC21CC@spike><c49b1db60812291944q51171c8csc3dd7fc5bab1c0a7@mail.gmail.com>
	<d1988d2d0812311612u18983567n1b26aae05db8ff6c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <570DB8E3B1294AFEA46A2BB3DA102525@spike>

 
> On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 8:44 PM, Kevin H 
> <kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com> wrote:
...
> >>
> >> Attacking anything in GEO would be exceedingly and reassuringly 
> >> difficult for a terrorist group, even a well funded one.
> >>
> >> spike
> >
> > Is it possible to construct a laser or other beam weapon that 
> > can/could disable a SPS (or other artificial satellite) in 
> orbit?  If 
> > that's ruled out, then I'm not worried.


Kevin, sorry I haven't answered this one, as I have been working some family
issues.

Hitting a satellite in LEO with a laser requires a sophisticated control
system.  Hitting one in GEO with enough energy to damage it requires one
hell of a lot of power.  So either task is difficult, but not impossible.
By the time a laser gets 36000 km, it has spread enough that it would take a
hell of a laser to damage a surface capable of handling a solar heat load.

spike






From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Thu Jan  1 05:36:59 2009
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Wed, 31 Dec 2008 21:36:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] A New Start..lol
In-Reply-To: <570DB8E3B1294AFEA46A2BB3DA102525@spike>
Message-ID: <76771.77146.qm@web110408.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTicSh9jeUU

Happy New Year:)
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 kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com  Thu Jan  1 07:31:32 2009
From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 00:31:32 -0700
Subject: [ExI] battery breakthru
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30812290413v6330f496sbee87c4ef3cfe6b0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <91F8DC345E164B6884B8E03218029403@GinaSony>
	<3AE2A6F2A30F4316938BD955C1B11568@GinaSony>
	<392CE0D4EF654413A7C8A2F22D919BA9@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<6AEA7FDAFFD346DCBE58D8A0DD44D769@GinaSony>
	<4957D363.4060308@comcast.net>
	<7C03B0086CF246CF9D3BA6D524E9A607@spike>
	<f21c22e30812290413v6330f496sbee87c4ef3cfe6b0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <c49b1db60812312331w2ef2d4a1ucc3ea23a366c3fc1@mail.gmail.com>

Found a pretty detailed thread about this explaining how the participants
think that this technology isn't going to work.  I'm not following the
science very well, but I think this company is sinking in credibility until
they build an actual prototype.
http://www.theeestory.com/topics/409?page=1

Kevin

On Mon, Dec 29, 2008 at 5:13 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>wrote:

> 2008/12/29 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
> >
> > Let's hope this is fer real:
> >
> >
> http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=batt
> > eries&id=18086
>
> The best thing about these would be that they don't wear out. I hate
> the idea of buying a car with half a tonne of storage batteries that
> will become useless after after a few hundred cycles.
>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090101/b9ea9c8a/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Jan  1 10:01:20 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 20:31:20 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Happy New Year!
Message-ID: <710b78fc0901010201r1d495a26g8b1e8996520e7b9c@mail.gmail.com>

It must be new year by now for just about everyone.

Happy New Year!

2009, can you believe it?

Do something awesome this year!

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com - my home
http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting


From stathisp at gmail.com  Thu Jan  1 11:25:32 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 22:25:32 +1100
Subject: [ExI] recent Doctor Who
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670812310030w33d51519r1daf42f3dca85610@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20081230152701.022e3be0@satx.rr.com>
	<2d6187670812301833p13436bbbtd8069db2489b6fd8@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20081230203939.022c3a30@satx.rr.com>
	<2d6187670812301933v65b70ad8of064b441f33da917@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20081230225029.022bc898@satx.rr.com>
	<710b78fc0812302221q28c5e735o7a884b39148d8185@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20081231005116.02350dc0@satx.rr.com>
	<2d6187670812310030w33d51519r1daf42f3dca85610@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30901010325l1097eb91ld08ef1b87304464a@mail.gmail.com>

2008/12/31 John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com>:

> What do you think of these shows...

Of all of them Firefly was probably the best-written but arguably it
was only barely science fiction.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Thu Jan  1 12:37:27 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 23:07:27 +1030
Subject: [ExI] recent Doctor Who
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670812310030w33d51519r1daf42f3dca85610@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20081230152701.022e3be0@satx.rr.com>
	<2d6187670812301833p13436bbbtd8069db2489b6fd8@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20081230203939.022c3a30@satx.rr.com>
	<2d6187670812301933v65b70ad8of064b441f33da917@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20081230225029.022bc898@satx.rr.com>
	<710b78fc0812302221q28c5e735o7a884b39148d8185@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20081231005116.02350dc0@satx.rr.com>
	<2d6187670812310030w33d51519r1daf42f3dca85610@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0901010437y69519c6csefda0ada2105ac69@mail.gmail.com>

> Lexx? So much insane fun (thank you Netflix).  The tragic love between Xev
> and Kai touched me (especially with the way they showed it in the musical
> episode).  And Kai's death at the end of the series choked me up.

Lexx! I only ever saw bits of it, out of order (thanks Aussie tv).
Crazy weird. Probably hallucinogens are called for.

I have liked the remake of Battlestar Galactica, although am not a devotee.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com - my home
http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Thu Jan  1 15:56:42 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 16:56:42 +0100
Subject: [ExI] recent Doctor Who
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30901010325l1097eb91ld08ef1b87304464a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20081230152701.022e3be0@satx.rr.com>
	<2d6187670812301833p13436bbbtd8069db2489b6fd8@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20081230203939.022c3a30@satx.rr.com>
	<2d6187670812301933v65b70ad8of064b441f33da917@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20081230225029.022bc898@satx.rr.com>
	<710b78fc0812302221q28c5e735o7a884b39148d8185@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20081231005116.02350dc0@satx.rr.com>
	<2d6187670812310030w33d51519r1daf42f3dca85610@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30901010325l1097eb91ld08ef1b87304464a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20901010756w4020f092hf027a78a2af24f69@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Of all of them Firefly was probably the best-written but arguably it
> was only barely science fiction.

Firefly/Serenity is really a very interesting, entertaining and
fascinating universe. I also like its politics...

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jan  1 16:33:38 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 10:33:38 -0600
Subject: [ExI] recent Doctor Who
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090101103042.023a4de8@satx.rr.com>

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:

 > Firefly

How was that series (and BG, for example) shown in Oz? Cable? Free 
broadcast? DVD? I've never seen either.

Damien Broderick



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Thu Jan  1 19:41:45 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 20:41:45 +0100
Subject: [ExI] recent Doctor Who
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090101103042.023a4de8@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090101103042.023a4de8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20901011141r72a33035v5b9f7e14325db50c@mail.gmail.com>

You have by know Blu-Rays both for the TV shows (Firefly) and for the
movie (Serenity).

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 5:33 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:
>
>> Firefly
>
> How was that series (and BG, for example) shown in Oz? Cable? Free
> broadcast? DVD? I've never seen either.
>
> Damien Broderick
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
Stefano Vaj


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Thu Jan  1 19:52:46 2009
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 1 Jan 2009 12:52:46 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Power sats and technological emigration
In-Reply-To: <495D1AA0.5070208@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
References: <n981345361.3369@liststar.think.org>
	<495D1AA0.5070208@diogenes.sacramento.ca.us>
Message-ID: <d1988d2d0901011152g76be6e1dw8abe2370f54d3a43@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 12:33 PM, John David Galt
<jdg at diogenes.sacramento.ca.us> wrote:
>>>> It also only makes
>>>> sense for a traffic model of a million tons per year or more.
>
>>> I see a disconnect.
>
>> Why?  The analysis is easy.  We have to replace a minimum of 500
>> GW/year for the next 30 years.  That's a hundred 10 to 20 thousand ton
>> power sats per year.  1-2 million tons a year.
>
> Forgive me if this is a dumb question, but why do we need to replace
> 500 GW/year for 30 years?  Do you expect that many existing power
> plants to break down, lose their fuel supplies, or be shut down for
> political reasons, or do you expect that much new demand for power?
> Such a forecast for any of these reasons, or even some of each,
> sounds farfetched to me.
>
> [Go ahead and quote me to list if you like.]

http://www.afstrinity.com/worldoil.htm

The world uses about 15 TW of energy in all forms.  Between the
decline of fossil fuels and the need for more energy for countries
such as China and India, we need to replace or build new sources of
about the same size as we now have.  If you replace 15 TW over 30
years, that's 500 GW/year.  The installation might be somewhat larger
if we want to put carbon back in the ground or use higher energy per
capita.

It's a big market.

Keith


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jan  1 20:34:14 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:34:14 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Blu-Ray etc
In-Reply-To: <580930c20901011141r72a33035v5b9f7e14325db50c@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090101103042.023a4de8@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901011141r72a33035v5b9f7e14325db50c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090101142638.023cc350@satx.rr.com>

At 08:41 PM 1/1/2009 +0100, Stefano Vaj wrote:

>You have by [now] Blu-Rays both for the TV shows (Firefly) and for the
>movie (Serenity).

My computer can't even read those new-fangled DVD thingees. Writers 
are *poor*. (Unless they inherited loads of dough, like Laurence van 
Cott Niven.)

[boo hoo]

But really I was asking about Australian TV, where traditionally a 
lot of shows restricted in the USA to cable are shown free-to-air. I 
wondered if this were still the case, given that Oz is often a nation 
of early adopters. When I left 5.5 years ago, cable was not yet 
universal; I imagine it is now. Hmm, maybe not; I read in a 2005 article:

"Australia is trailing most other OECD countries in the adoption rate 
of broadband services. It ranks just 21st out of the 30 members of 
the OECD. This is despite the fact that the numbers of subscribers 
more than doubled to 1.55 million in 2004. By the end of 2004, some 
118 million homes and businesses in western countries had broadband 
connections."

Damien Broderick





From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jan  1 20:38:01 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 14:38:01 -0600
Subject: [ExI] broadband in Oz
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090101143558.02324cf8@satx.rr.com>

fwiw:

<http://www.marketresearch.com/product/print/default.asp?g=1&productid=1539701>

...broadband penetration is proceeding at high speed in Australia. By 
mid-2007 there were close to 4.5 million subscribers [pop. circa 20 
million]. In the residential market this means a broadband 
penetration of close to 64% in Internet households (46% of total 
households). In the business market, this figure is over 80%.

While the penetration of broadband in Australia is catching up with 
its trading partners it is still lagging behind in the quality of 
broadband provided by the operators, and in the price customers have 
to pay. The majority of customers are still on services that provide 
only 256Kb/s or 512Kb/s. Telstra, however, does make an 8Mb/s 
available, but this is not a guaranteed speed, only a best-effort service.

Telstra's competitors are leading the market in the higher speed 
ADSL2+ services market. The regulator has finally been able to force 
better unbundled local loop and spectrum-sharing wholesale services 
into the market, and affordable true-broadband services are now 
available. Telstra is only making ADSL2+ available in those exchanges 
where its competitors have installed their own DSLAMs, so it is being 
a follower rather than a leader in new and innovative broadband 
services, a fact that is hampering a more rapid deployment of this 
superior infrastructure.

Broadband infrastructure is essential for the social and economic 
development of the country and both the current Government and the 
Opposition have broadband policies in place, aimed at ensuring that 
regional and other fringe areas will receive services that are 
equivalent to those available in the more economically viable 
metropolitan areas of the country.

However, before any further plans are developed the government will 
have to establish the right regulatory environment. It would be 
foolish to allow for the overbuilding of infrastructure; a far better 
option would be to ensure the sharing of infrastructure.

For this to happen, the government will need to act upon its 
operational separation legislation, which was passed in Parliament 
back in 2005. Only when this is sorted out can responsible investment 
decisions be made and responsible government funding be put in place. 
As we have seen in other countries, this will enable more companies 
to enter the facilities-based market (even in regional markets) in 
addition to entering the services market. 



From max at maxmore.com  Thu Jan  1 22:17:04 2009
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 16:17:04 -0600
Subject: [ExI] recent Doctor Who
Message-ID: <200901012243.n01Mhnn3019755@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

The Firefly series and the Serenity movie are the creation of the 
marvelous Joss Whedon. Since he hasn't been mentioned in the thread, 
I'm assuming you don't know. He created Buffy: The Vampire Slayer -- 
one of the most consistently entertaining and well written TV shows 
ever, and has recently been writing comics, including the excellent 
Astonishing X-Men, a Buffy Season 8 comic, Fray, and Runaways.

If there were to a be a genuinely transhumanist TV series, Whedon is 
the fellow I'd like to write it.

Max



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Jan  2 00:18:35 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 01 Jan 2009 18:18:35 -0600
Subject: [ExI] recent Doctor Who
In-Reply-To: <200901012243.n01Mhnn3019755@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200901012243.n01Mhnn3019755@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090101181424.023c3a88@satx.rr.com>

At 04:17 PM 1/1/2009 -0600, Max wrote:

>Joss Whedon... created Buffy: The Vampire Slayer -- one of the most 
>consistently entertaining and well written TV shows ever

Yeah, but Summer Glau beats the pants off Buffy Summers. (Admittedly, 
one's Summer does not make a wallow.)

Damien Broderick



From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Jan  2 00:34:20 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 00:34:20 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Happy New Year!
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0901010201r1d495a26g8b1e8996520e7b9c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0901010201r1d495a26g8b1e8996520e7b9c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0901011634w6521b2e7y3f175ad5988a8ccf@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Emlyn wrote:
> It must be new year by now for just about everyone.
>
> Happy New Year!
> 2009, can you believe it?
> Do something awesome this year!
>



On the BBC2 TV New year musical entertainment programme 'Jules
Hootenanny', after her performance the singer Annie Lennox had a brief
chat with the host.
Jules said 'And what is your recommendation for 2009?'
After a brief pause, Annie said, 'Well, 2009 is going to be a
catastrophic year. I recommend staying in bed'. Unsettled, trying to
make a joke of it, Jules said, 'So your recommendation for 2009 is to
stay in bed!', then laughed and swiftly moved on to another guest.

Unexpected serious comment on a light entertainment show.

BillK


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Jan  2 00:42:36 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:12:36 +1030
Subject: [ExI] recent Doctor Who
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090101103042.023a4de8@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090101103042.023a4de8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0901011642q272ead4eqfdded159dbe16f7d@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/2 Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>:
> On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:
>
>> Firefly
>
> How was that series (and BG, for example) shown in Oz? Cable? Free
> broadcast? DVD? I've never seen either.
>
> Damien Broderick
>

They were broadcast here extensively and exclusively on bittorrent, afaik.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com - my home
http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Jan  2 00:43:59 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 11:13:59 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Happy New Year!
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0901011634w6521b2e7y3f175ad5988a8ccf@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0901010201r1d495a26g8b1e8996520e7b9c@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0901011634w6521b2e7y3f175ad5988a8ccf@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0901011643q173aaae9y6dcdd9d2c7d1b45e@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/2 BillK <pharos at gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 10:01 AM, Emlyn wrote:
>> It must be new year by now for just about everyone.
>>
>> Happy New Year!
>> 2009, can you believe it?
>> Do something awesome this year!
>>
> On the BBC2 TV New year musical entertainment programme 'Jules
> Hootenanny', after her performance the singer Annie Lennox had a brief
> chat with the host.
> Jules said 'And what is your recommendation for 2009?'
> After a brief pause, Annie said, 'Well, 2009 is going to be a
> catastrophic year. I recommend staying in bed'. Unsettled, trying to
> make a joke of it, Jules said, 'So your recommendation for 2009 is to
> stay in bed!', then laughed and swiftly moved on to another guest.
>
> Unexpected serious comment on a light entertainment show.

I like Annie Lennox, but that's super lame. I stand by my previous exhortation.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com - my home
http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Jan  2 02:03:18 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:33:18 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Blu-Ray etc
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090101142638.023cc350@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090101103042.023a4de8@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901011141r72a33035v5b9f7e14325db50c@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090101142638.023cc350@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0901011803k4d70a1cic1b72ffdbf01ea9e@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/2 Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>:
> At 08:41 PM 1/1/2009 +0100, Stefano Vaj wrote:
>
>> You have by [now] Blu-Rays both for the TV shows (Firefly) and for the
>> movie (Serenity).
>
> My computer can't even read those new-fangled DVD thingees. Writers are
> *poor*. (Unless they inherited loads of dough, like Laurence van Cott
> Niven.)
>
> [boo hoo]
>
> But really I was asking about Australian TV, where traditionally a lot of
> shows restricted in the USA to cable are shown free-to-air. I wondered if
> this were still the case, given that Oz is often a nation of early adopters.
> When I left 5.5 years ago, cable was not yet universal; I imagine it is now.
> Hmm, maybe not; I read in a 2005 article:
>
> "Australia is trailing most other OECD countries in the adoption rate of
> broadband services. It ranks just 21st out of the 30 members of the OECD.
> This is despite the fact that the numbers of subscribers more than doubled
> to 1.55 million in 2004. By the end of 2004, some 118 million homes and
> businesses in western countries had broadband connections."
>
> Damien Broderick

In Oz, free to air tv is pretty terrible these days. My good wife
Jodie described free-to-air tv recently as like abandoned yahoo
newsgroups, just spam and the odd "hello, is anyone there?" . Getting
worse daily.

We have Foxtel as the only real pay-tv provider, at it seems to be
pretty good, I know people who pay the $100/month for a decent set of
channels. It includes the kind of stuff USians would expect, eg: the
sci-fi channel.

Outside that, sci fi shows on free-to-air tv have always been shown in
shifting time slots, out of order, and never in full. That's not
getting any better. AFAIK, firefly never made it to free-to-air tv
here.

I kind of hate the idea of pay-tv. Yet another proprietary one-way
communications medium. I don't need to pay that kind of money to have
people pump mass produced crapola and ads at me :-)

Instead, I pay in the same vicinity for the best internet I can get my
hands on. I currently pay $75/month for ADSL2+, with a 40 gb/month
cap. I think that's pretty bad by US standards (do you guys even have
bandwidth caps??). OTOH, we have a lot of choice in providers,
multitudes of ISPs everywhere, so within the constraints of our local
setup, competition is fierce.

We just increased our plan, actually, from a 25gb/month cap, because
we were blowing the cap regularly. We've got 4 people (myself, Jodie
my wife, and my 13 and 8 year old kids), with 6 PCs in regular use
(one each, plus one is our TV, plus my 8yo boy has a spare for when
his friends are over, which is just about every day). Since my
daughter discovered Last.fm, and Jodie and I started watching stuff on
Hulu.com and the Daily Show regularly, our usage has gone through the
roof.

And that's without trying to get my hands on stuff like Firefly :-)

As far as us being early adopters; I think we really are not.
Broadband has been lagging because of crappy telstra and its crapulous
practices. Our PM is trying to get a National Broadband Network
underway, but it looks like the way its framed, the owner might end up
with total control (no more competition), and the copper might get
ripped out in the process. Bad. OTOH, we seem to have 3G here
everywhere now, very cool stuff happening in the wireless comms space,
so that's a ray of light.

Oh, and can someone please pop over to Jeff Bezos's house and spank
him for me? Where's my Kindle you bastards?

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com - my home
http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting


From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Jan  2 03:38:46 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 03:38:46 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Happy New Year!
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0901011643q173aaae9y6dcdd9d2c7d1b45e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0901010201r1d495a26g8b1e8996520e7b9c@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0901011634w6521b2e7y3f175ad5988a8ccf@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0901011643q173aaae9y6dcdd9d2c7d1b45e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0901011938k471ce8e1t4253169f8663e99c@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Emlyn wrote:
>> On the BBC2 TV New year musical entertainment programme 'Jules
>> Hootenanny', after her performance the singer Annie Lennox had a brief
>> chat with the host.
>> Jules said 'And what is your recommendation for 2009?'
>> After a brief pause, Annie said, 'Well, 2009 is going to be a
>> catastrophic year. I recommend staying in bed'. Unsettled, trying to
>> make a joke of it, Jules said, 'So your recommendation for 2009 is to
>> stay in bed!', then laughed and swiftly moved on to another guest.
>>
>> Unexpected serious comment on a light entertainment show.
>
> I like Annie Lennox, but that's super lame. I stand by my previous exhortation.
>


<Grin> Well, of course Annie Lennox is not a noted financial analyst.

I understood her to be saying that you might as well go to sleep and
wake up in 2010, missing all the bad stuff in 2009. What I thought
remarkable was that the realization of just how bad 2009 is going to
be is spreading through the general public, in spite of all the
government attempts to soothe their fears.

Some analysts do agree with her opinion.
See:
<http://www.minyanville.com/articles/WMT-TGT-GE-C-djia-gm/index/a/20445>
Five Themes You Need to Know for 2009
Kevin Depew   Dec 31, 2008

Final paragraph:
So there you have it. Only 366 days until 2010. That's the good news.
When all is said and done, perhaps the best thing that will be said of
2009 is that it only lasted a year.
------------

BillK


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Jan  2 06:32:33 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:02:33 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Happy New Year!
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0901011938k471ce8e1t4253169f8663e99c@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0901010201r1d495a26g8b1e8996520e7b9c@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0901011634w6521b2e7y3f175ad5988a8ccf@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0901011643q173aaae9y6dcdd9d2c7d1b45e@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0901011938k471ce8e1t4253169f8663e99c@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0901012232o3d7d0bf6q718ec862770bc32e@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/2 BillK <pharos at gmail.com>:
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Emlyn wrote:
>>> On the BBC2 TV New year musical entertainment programme 'Jules
>>> Hootenanny', after her performance the singer Annie Lennox had a brief
>>> chat with the host.
>>> Jules said 'And what is your recommendation for 2009?'
>>> After a brief pause, Annie said, 'Well, 2009 is going to be a
>>> catastrophic year. I recommend staying in bed'. Unsettled, trying to
>>> make a joke of it, Jules said, 'So your recommendation for 2009 is to
>>> stay in bed!', then laughed and swiftly moved on to another guest.
>>>
>>> Unexpected serious comment on a light entertainment show.
>>
>> I like Annie Lennox, but that's super lame. I stand by my previous exhortation.
>>
>
>
> <Grin> Well, of course Annie Lennox is not a noted financial analyst.
>
> I understood her to be saying that you might as well go to sleep and
> wake up in 2010, missing all the bad stuff in 2009. What I thought
> remarkable was that the realization of just how bad 2009 is going to
> be is spreading through the general public, in spite of all the
> government attempts to soothe their fears.
>
> Some analysts do agree with her opinion.
> See:
> <http://www.minyanville.com/articles/WMT-TGT-GE-C-djia-gm/index/a/20445>
> Five Themes You Need to Know for 2009
> Kevin Depew   Dec 31, 2008
>
> Final paragraph:
> So there you have it. Only 366 days until 2010. That's the good news.
> When all is said and done, perhaps the best thing that will be said of
> 2009 is that it only lasted a year.
> ------------
>
> BillK

Perhaps I should have been more cautious in my phrasing. Try this:

---
Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit my best wishes
for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible , low stress,
non-addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the summer solstice
holiday, practised within the most enjoyable traditions of the
religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your
choice , with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and /or
traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or
secular traditions at all....................

And a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling,and medically
uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted
calendar year 2009, but not without due respect for the calendars of
choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped
make our Nation great, (not to imply that our Nation is necessarily
greater than any other country), and without regard to the race,
creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of
computer platform, tool brand, automobile brand, favoured type of
fermented alcohol-enhanced beverage or sexual preference of the
wishee.

(EULA: By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms. This
greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal, it is freely
transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies
no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for
herself / himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and
is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. Where required by
law, this wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual
application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the
issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and
warranty is limited to replacement of these wishes or issuance of a
new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.)
---

(not mine I'm afraid)

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlynoregan.com - my home
http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting


From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Jan  2 09:01:24 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 01:01:24 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
Message-ID: <495DD7E4.8010003@mac.com>

Some of you may have seen this already but I just saw a status update
from her on Facebook.  WOW!!!!  <bouncing off the walls>


From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Fri Jan  2 09:39:23 2009
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 01:39:23 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
In-Reply-To: <495DD7E4.8010003@mac.com>
References: <495DD7E4.8010003@mac.com>
Message-ID: <8B23298D396E4D869891E89D6AA1108D@GinaSony>

We are all thinking of you Amara. Congratulations! Yours, 


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: samantha 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 1:01 AM
  Subject: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!


  Some of you may have seen this already but I just saw a status update
  from her on Facebook.  WOW!!!!  <bouncing off the walls>
  _______________________________________________
  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/20090102/2c875ee1/attachment.html>

From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Fri Jan  2 11:32:54 2009
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 06:32:54 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
In-Reply-To: <8B23298D396E4D869891E89D6AA1108D@GinaSony>
References: <495DD7E4.8010003@mac.com>
	<8B23298D396E4D869891E89D6AA1108D@GinaSony>
Message-ID: <1362.12.77.169.8.1230895974.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>

Go Amara! Go Myrtle!  :)

Happy New Year!

MB



From eschatoon at gmail.com  Fri Jan  2 11:45:56 2009
From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:45:56 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
In-Reply-To: <1362.12.77.169.8.1230895974.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>
References: <495DD7E4.8010003@mac.com>
	<8B23298D396E4D869891E89D6AA1108D@GinaSony>
	<1362.12.77.169.8.1230895974.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>
Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90901020345s3e2a1fd1v51f9ec01947b4c13@mail.gmail.com>

Go Amara! According to recent intelligence our new friend will not be
called Myrtle -- Amara has chosen a name and will announce it at due
time.

On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM, MB <mbb386 at main.nc.us> wrote:
> Go Amara! Go Myrtle!  :)
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> MB
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
aka Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco


From stathisp at gmail.com  Fri Jan  2 13:10:26 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 00:10:26 +1100
Subject: [ExI] broadband in Oz
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090101143558.02324cf8@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090101143558.02324cf8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30901020510p5ab17df5k7d60861ed7a2d875@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/2 Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>:
> fwiw:
>
> <http://www.marketresearch.com/product/print/default.asp?g=1&productid=1539701>
>
> ...broadband penetration is proceeding at high speed in Australia. By
> mid-2007 there were close to 4.5 million subscribers [pop. circa 20
> million]. In the residential market this means a broadband penetration of
> close to 64% in Internet households (46% of total households). In the
> business market, this figure is over 80%.
>
> While the penetration of broadband in Australia is catching up with its
> trading partners it is still lagging behind in the quality of broadband
> provided by the operators, and in the price customers have to pay. The
> majority of customers are still on services that provide only 256Kb/s or
> 512Kb/s. Telstra, however, does make an 8Mb/s available, but this is not a
> guaranteed speed, only a best-effort service.

Even worse than the slow and expensive and the almost-bungled new
broadband network government initiative is the proposal for mandatory
censorship of the Internet, as in China:

http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/soa/ISPs-Govt-porn-filters-could-cripple-internet-/0,130061791,339289857,00.htm


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk  Fri Jan  2 18:28:15 2009
From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 18:28:15 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [ExI] recent Doctor Who
In-Reply-To: <mailman.172.1230867535.96.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <317272.38659.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Max wrote: "The Firefly series and the Serenity movie are the creation of the 
marvelous Joss Whedon. Since he hasn't been mentioned in the thread, 
I'm assuming you don't know. He created Buffy: The Vampire Slayer -- 
one of the most consistently entertaining and well written TV shows 
ever, and has recently been writing comics, including the excellent 
Astonishing X-Men, a Buffy Season 8 comic, Fray, and Runaways.

If there were to a be a genuinely transhumanist TV series, Whedon is 
the fellow I'd like to write it."

Well, Dollhouse (Joss Whedon's new show, due to air in the US soon) has some transhumanist themes - the show's plot is built around people (or "dolls") who work for an agency that changes their personalities and memories. Each episode, agents go undercover totally believing in the cover identity that's been put into them. Seeing as characters in Buffy and Angel regularly philosophised about the work they do, and Firefly had frequent discussions about how they got paid and with Shepherd Book about their work, I imagine there will be discussions about the implications of the neurotechnologies used on them. 

I reckon when some future neurotechnology starts serisouly touching on questions of memory and personality, lazy journalists will pepper their articles with quotes from Dollhouse, seeing as every newspaper column I read these days seems to have at least two mass media references per article.

Now, if only we can get him to do a show with nano- and info- technology in overdrive, we might get a quote for every area of transhumanism....

Tom


      


From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Fri Jan  2 19:47:49 2009
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:47:49 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90901020345s3e2a1fd1v51f9ec01947b4c13@mail.gmail.com>
References: <495DD7E4.8010003@mac.com>
	<8B23298D396E4D869891E89D6AA1108D@GinaSony>
	<1362.12.77.169.8.1230895974.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>
	<1fa8c3b90901020345s3e2a1fd1v51f9ec01947b4c13@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2d6187670901021147u265c0af9qa3e948abdf768a02@mail.gmail.com>

Great news!!  Greetings to the brand new little human being!!  You will
witness such wonders during your hopefully very very long lifetime.

John Grigg : )

On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Eschatoon Magic <eschatoon at gmail.com> wrote:

> Go Amara! According to recent intelligence our new friend will not be
> called Myrtle -- Amara has chosen a name and will announce it at due
> time.
>
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM, MB <mbb386 at main.nc.us> wrote:
> > Go Amara! Go Myrtle!  :)
> >
> > Happy New Year!
> >
> > MB
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Eschatoon Magic
> http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
> aka Giulio Prisco
> http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090102/152c5d68/attachment.html>

From santostasigio at yahoo.com  Fri Jan  2 20:23:14 2009
From: santostasigio at yahoo.com (giovanni santost)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:23:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670901021147u265c0af9qa3e948abdf768a02@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <923751.72052.qm@web31306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Best wishes to Amara and her little daughter.
Giovanni

--- On Fri, 1/2/09, John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com> wrote:

From: John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Date: Friday, January 2, 2009, 1:47 PM


Great news!!? Greetings to the brand new little human being!!? You will witness such wonders during your hopefully very very long lifetime. 

John Grigg : )


On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Eschatoon Magic <eschatoon at gmail.com> wrote:

Go Amara! According to recent intelligence our new friend will not be
called Myrtle -- Amara has chosen a name and will announce it at due
time.




On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM, MB <mbb386 at main.nc.us> wrote:
> Go Amara! Go Myrtle! ?:)
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> MB
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



--
Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
aka Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco



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

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



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090102/87cf3bb5/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Jan  2 23:40:25 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:40:25 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
In-Reply-To: <923751.72052.qm@web31306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <923751.72052.qm@web31306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <495EA5E9.8060609@mac.com>

giovanni santost wrote:
> Best wishes to Amara and her little daughter.
> Giovanni
> 

I just saw this facebook status update from her sister Nina.

"Nina is the aunt of a healthy baby girl today!"

I haven't heard any other detail yet but I expect mother and daughter 
are resting.

- samantha


From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Sat Jan  3 00:09:36 2009
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:09:36 -0700
Subject: [ExI] battery breakthru
In-Reply-To: <7C03B0086CF246CF9D3BA6D524E9A607@spike>
References: <91F8DC345E164B6884B8E03218029403@GinaSony>
	<3AE2A6F2A30F4316938BD955C1B11568@GinaSony>
	<392CE0D4EF654413A7C8A2F22D919BA9@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<6AEA7FDAFFD346DCBE58D8A0DD44D769@GinaSony>
	<4957D363.4060308@comcast.net>
	<7C03B0086CF246CF9D3BA6D524E9A607@spike>
Message-ID: <a6a17bd40901021609q532df8a8j51845f24a8988a24@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Dec 28, 2008 at 3:26 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
> Let's hope this is fer real:
>
> http://www.technologyreview.com/read_article.aspx?ch=specialsections&sc=batt
> eries&id=18086

One can expect supporters to say optimistic things, and
skeptics/detractors to emphasize the negative, so I took note when Jim
Miller, a skeptic, conceded a crucial foundational fact:

"Jim Miller, vice president of advanced transportation technologies at
Maxwell Technologies and an ultracap expert who spent 18 years doing
engineering work at Ford Motor, isn't so convinced.

<snip>

But then he says:

"I have no doubt you can develop that kind of [ceramic] material, and
the mechanism that gives you the energy storage is clear..."

Best, Jeff Davis

   "Everything's hard till you know how to do it."
                           Ray Charles


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jan  3 00:20:47 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 16:20:47 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
In-Reply-To: <495EA5E9.8060609@mac.com>
References: <923751.72052.qm@web31306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<495EA5E9.8060609@mac.com>
Message-ID: <495EAF5F.5000500@mac.com>

samantha wrote:
> giovanni santost wrote:
>> Best wishes to Amara and her little daughter.
>> Giovanni
>>
> 
> I just saw this facebook status update from her sister Nina.
> 
> "Nina is the aunt of a healthy baby girl today!"
> 
> I haven't heard any other detail yet but I expect mother and daughter 
> are resting.
> 

Nina confirms that Amara and daughter are doing great!  But the next bit 
of news should come from Amara herself [and her best present, ever] 
after a well-deserved rest.

- samantha


From jrd1415 at gmail.com  Sat Jan  3 00:21:58 2009
From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:21:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
In-Reply-To: <495EA5E9.8060609@mac.com>
References: <923751.72052.qm@web31306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<495EA5E9.8060609@mac.com>
Message-ID: <a6a17bd40901021621l6dbf3f2fl1805bef674a3227@mail.gmail.com>

A second bit of good news for 2009.  Happy New Year!

Best wishes from Jeff and Gail in Baja.



On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 4:40 PM, samantha <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:
> giovanni santost wrote:
>>
>> Best wishes to Amara and her little daughter.
>> Giovanni
>>
>
> I just saw this facebook status update from her sister Nina.
>
> "Nina is the aunt of a healthy baby girl today!"
>
> I haven't heard any other detail yet but I expect mother and daughter are
> resting.
>
> - samantha
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Sat Jan  3 01:03:16 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 11:33:16 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
In-Reply-To: <495EA5E9.8060609@mac.com>
References: <923751.72052.qm@web31306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<495EA5E9.8060609@mac.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0901021703h5237c206l5f8cb651b8458901@mail.gmail.com>

Congratulations Amara, and to your new traveling companion. I hope it
all went as you wanted it to.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting
(http://emlynoregan.com is currently down, see
http://point7.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/scarcity-mode-emlynoregancom-is-down/)

2009/1/3 samantha <sjatkins at mac.com>:
> giovanni santost wrote:
>>
>> Best wishes to Amara and her little daughter.
>> Giovanni
>>
>
> I just saw this facebook status update from her sister Nina.
>
> "Nina is the aunt of a healthy baby girl today!"
>
> I haven't heard any other detail yet but I expect mother and daughter are
> resting.
>
> - samantha
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Sat Jan  3 02:17:58 2009
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 18:17:58 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI]  I don't understand students: help !
Message-ID: <469562.89145.qm@web110415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Bryan Bishop wrote Sat Dec 20 02:29:24 UTC 2008:

>>There have been many proposals on this list and in the past from other
>>sources for all sorts of community learning centers, libraries to get
>>more involved in new forms of archiving information to be displayed to
>>youngsters, fablabs as a truly humanitarian education (*do* stuff,
>>act, that sort of thing), etc. I also think this falls in line with
>>some of the proposals regarding switching over to teachers competing
>>for specific students, which our Hungarian list subscribers might be
>>able to comment more on (m1n3r?).

I wrote On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Anna Taylor <femmechakra at yahoo.ca> 

>Really? What happens to the social aspect of it? Students today as I see >them are not very sociable and you want to make computers more unclosed >in a 4 wall room? Doesn't that make it more secluded? How are are people >supposed to learn if not surrounded by different people?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong supporter of self-education with the use of technology and I don't see anything wrong with scholars searching for specific students threw the use of technology. I wonder about the idea of technology alienating children.  How a computer can become more familiar than another human being?  Is this what I would teach my child if I wanted to bear children?  Imho...It's one thing to look at it from the point of single/married as opposed to looking at the point of view of family, I'm just curious to get some point of views.

Thanks,
Anna

PS As I recently just started again to teach young children in public schools how to dance and have to admit the experience wasn't on my top ten list, I am simply asking for advice.





      __________________________________________________________________
Instant Messaging, free SMS, sharing photos and more... Try the new Yahoo! Canada Messenger at http://ca.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/


From Frankmac at ripco.com  Sat Jan  3 18:00:52 2009
From: Frankmac at ripco.com (Frank McElligott)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 13:00:52 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Soon Nano will be the way out of the coming Depression
Message-ID: <0359826A82504DC5BE2BF3D81F1464F6@FrankMcElligPC>

When the sharks who swim on the internet, troll for clients using NANO TECH as the next best thing since beer and Pizza,
where will this list go as explodes to 1 million 

      Getting into the right nanotechnology plays now is like buying Yahoo! when it hit the market in 1996 for 70 cents a share. 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
           
     
      Could 2009's Best Profit Opportunity come from Cloth that Doesn't Stain... 
      and Golf Balls that NEVER Wear Out?

      It's today's cutting edge of serious science. And from an investment point of view, it offers more real upside than Internet stocks ever did...

      Fellow Investor,

           We're convinced that a once-in-a-decade opportunity for spectacular profits is shaping up in nanotechnology. 

           By tinkering with atoms and molecules, scientists are creating new materials with properties that are hard to believe.  Like cloth that doesn't stain, golf balls that never wear out and thread that is 100 times stronger than steel.

           It may not be long before we see computers the size of microbes, cancer-killing robots swimming through our bloodstream and nano-factories so small they can fit on top of a soda can.

            This is today's cutting edge of serious science.  And from an investment point of view, it offers more real upside than Internet stocks ever did.  These companies aren't run by 20-somethings thinking up "dot-com" ideas in their garages.  The equipment you need to manipulate atoms costs millions. And barriers to entry are formidable. The number of legitimate companies in this sphere is small, but the profit opportunity for early investors is enormous.

           Getting into the right nanotech plays now is like buying Yahoo! when it hit the market in 1996 for 70 cents a share.  Within four years, a $10,000 investment bloomed into $1.5 million.  Even if you didn't sell Yahoo at the top for $105 a share (and who did?) you've still got $212,500 for every $10,000 you invested.  That's the sort of return we're looking at for early investors in the right nano-stocks. 

           This burgeoning sector is just one of the 11 investment angles that my research team and I believe offer the most explosive profit potential in 2009.  

           To see our full range of forecasts and reserve your copy of Hottest Investment Opportunities of 2009, please go here.

      Sincerely,


      Paul Tracy 
      Chief Investment Strategist
      StreetAuthority Market Advisor

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



      This message was sent directly from TopStockAnalysts. Legal Information.
      Copyright 2001-2008 TopStockAnalysts, LLC. All rights reserved.  
      Contact Info
      TopStockAnalysts, LLC
      839-K Quince Orchard Blvd, Gaithersburg, MD 20878-1614
      Phone: 301.216.2005

      If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you may unsubscribe here. 
     


 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090103/adae6512/attachment.html>

From jedwebb at hotmail.com  Sat Jan  3 18:01:25 2009
From: jedwebb at hotmail.com (Jeremy Webb )
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:01:25 +0000
Subject: [ExI] The new Doctor
Message-ID: <COL106-DS223E0EEED985EEFAADDAC3B6E30@phx.gbl>

And the new Doctor Who is:- Matt Smith ----- Jeremy Webb


From kanzure at gmail.com  Sat Jan  3 18:46:54 2009
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 12:46:54 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Soon Nano will be the way out of the coming Depression
In-Reply-To: <0359826A82504DC5BE2BF3D81F1464F6@FrankMcElligPC>
References: <0359826A82504DC5BE2BF3D81F1464F6@FrankMcElligPC>
Message-ID: <55ad6af70901031046q23556aas3752981dd02d7e85@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 12:00 PM, Frank McElligott <Frankmac at ripco.com> wrote:
>       This is today's cutting edge of serious science.  And from an
> investment point of view, it offers more real upside than Internet stocks
> ever did.  These companies aren't run by 20-somethings thinking up "dot-com"
> ideas in their garages.  The equipment you need to manipulate atoms costs
> millions. And barriers to entry are formidable. The number of legitimate
> companies in this sphere is small, but the profit opportunity for early
> investors is enormous.

Uh, I have issue with this.

> ideas in their garages.  The equipment you need to manipulate atoms costs
> millions. And barriers to entry are formidable. The number of legitimate

Yeah, that's not necessarily true.

http://heybryan.org/instrumentation/instru.html

May the $100 STM (or AFM?) live long life. With significantly less
than a million dollars, the designs can be modified to increase
resolution.

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507


From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com  Sat Jan  3 21:16:36 2009
From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 14:16:36 -0700
Subject: [ExI] I don't understand students: help !
In-Reply-To: <469562.89145.qm@web110415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <469562.89145.qm@web110415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c49b1db60901031316rb7a2507rc534e3e8f247c589@mail.gmail.com>

In my opinion, the school and classroom isn't the great platform for
socializing children as it's been cracked up to be.  Children regularly
divide up into clicks, establish pecking orders and hierarchies, and this is
a *result* of having individuals forced into the same area.  We see exactly
the same thing occur in prisons.
Socializing needs to occur on a *voluntary* basis.  But, in the meantime,
these secondary goals tend to get in the way of the primary aim of
education: attaining knowledge.

On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Anna Taylor <femmechakra at yahoo.ca> wrote:

> Bryan Bishop wrote Sat Dec 20 02:29:24 UTC 2008:
>
> >>There have been many proposals on this list and in the past from other
> >>sources for all sorts of community learning centers, libraries to get
> >>more involved in new forms of archiving information to be displayed to
> >>youngsters, fablabs as a truly humanitarian education (*do* stuff,
> >>act, that sort of thing), etc. I also think this falls in line with
> >>some of the proposals regarding switching over to teachers competing
> >>for specific students, which our Hungarian list subscribers might be
> >>able to comment more on (m1n3r?).
>
> I wrote On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Anna Taylor <femmechakra at
> yahoo.ca>
>
> >Really? What happens to the social aspect of it? Students today as I see
> >them are not very sociable and you want to make computers more unclosed >in
> a 4 wall room? Doesn't that make it more secluded? How are are people
> >supposed to learn if not surrounded by different people?
>
> Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong supporter of self-education with the use
> of technology and I don't see anything wrong with scholars searching for
> specific students threw the use of technology. I wonder about the idea of
> technology alienating children.  How a computer can become more familiar
> than another human being?  Is this what I would teach my child if I wanted
> to bear children?  Imho...It's one thing to look at it from the point of
> single/married as opposed to looking at the point of view of family, I'm
> just curious to get some point of views.
>
> Thanks,
> Anna
>
> PS As I recently just started again to teach young children in public
> schools how to dance and have to admit the experience wasn't on my top ten
> list, I am simply asking for advice.
>
>
>
>
>
>      __________________________________________________________________
> Instant Messaging, free SMS, sharing photos and more... Try the new Yahoo!
> Canada Messenger at http://ca.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090103/42be91fa/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jan  3 21:40:37 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 15:40:37 -0600
Subject: [ExI] I don't understand students: help !
In-Reply-To: <c49b1db60901031316rb7a2507rc534e3e8f247c589@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <469562.89145.qm@web110415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<c49b1db60901031316rb7a2507rc534e3e8f247c589@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090103153206.02268728@satx.rr.com>

At 02:16 PM 1/3/2009 -0700, Kevin H wrote:

>  Children regularly divide up into clicks, establish pecking orders

You're thinking of chicks. No, wait, they're divided by clucks. 
Perhaps ticks? No, that'd  be clocks and Clegg's. I have it--claques! 
Or is that too playful?

But enough of this intellectual effort. I'm feeling peckish, and I 
haven't put my order in yet. 



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sat Jan  3 21:51:30 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 22:51:30 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Folding@Home
Message-ID: <580930c20901031351q6797344br9d7b6c3319899427@mail.gmail.com>

"Transhumanism is both a reason-based philosophy and a cultural movement
that affirms the possibility and desirability of
fundamentally improving the human condition by means of science and
 technology." (Max More)

Yet, many of us from time to time brings up the idea that organised
transhumanism should "take things into its hands" and directly deal with
advancing techno-science and applications that may be relevant to a
posthuman change.

Now, I personally have nothing against grassroot efforts, but I have always
very skeptical on the opportunity to invest direectly the very scarce
resources of organised transhumanism on garden-variety space programs,
biohacking, domestic-refrigerator cryonics or backyard AI research. After
all, neocon intellectuals or business lobbyists eager to see Iraq under
attack did not pack their kitchen knives or hunting rifles for a plane trip
to Babylonia, but made what was necessary to have the US armed forces
involved and to direct their actions to this effect. :-)

Accordingly, I believe that H+ activists wishing to get involved in the
practicalities of H+ tech should rather get in their private capacity a
research job with IBM or Pfizer or Novartis or DARPA or NASA or CERN or the
academia, establish a visionary startup company and have it listed in the
NASDAQ, or launch an Open Source project.

Yet, I think that a nice opportunity to do something good in practical terms
*and* for the visibility and promotion of transhumanism is currently offered
by the Folding at Home Project <http://folding.stanford.edu/>. I believe that I
need not emphasise here the importance of proteomics in biotechnological
terms, nor to explain what distributed computing is and why it can make a
difference with regard to "intractable" issues such as protein foldings.

Thus, I am pleased to inform you that as a personal initiative I have
established a TranshumanistFoldingTeam within such project, whose ?number is
*157440*, to which I strongly encourage all of you to subscribe by offering
your spare computing cycles, be they those of a x86
CPU<http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Download>,
or even more profitably those of an ATI or Nvidia
GPU<http://folding.stanford.edu/English/DownloadWinOther>or of the
Cell processor in a PS3.

If a sufficient critical mass of transhumanists around the world could be
involved, and collectively make the project's top ranking
contributors' list<http://folding.stanford.edu/English/FAQ-Points>this
would pay the additional dividend of showing everybody that a
significant group of transhumanists exists who are ready to put at least the
relevant minor effort involved where their not-so-loud mouth is.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090103/a3ead180/attachment.html>

From kanzure at gmail.com  Sat Jan  3 21:57:28 2009
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 15:57:28 -0600
Subject: [ExI] [Hplus2] Folding@Home
In-Reply-To: <580930c20901031351q6797344br9d7b6c3319899427@mail.gmail.com>
References: <580930c20901031351q6797344br9d7b6c3319899427@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55ad6af70901031357l33cb39d7t873b930aa00843b8@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thus, I am pleased to inform you that as a personal initiative I have
> established a TranshumanistFoldingTeam within such project, whose ?number is
> 157440, to which I strongly encourage all of you to subscribe by offering
> your spare computing cycles, be they those of a x86 CPU, or even more
> profitably those of an ATI or Nvidia GPU or of the Cell processor in a PS3.
>
> If a sufficient critical mass of transhumanists around the world could be
> involved, and collectively make the project's top ranking contributors' list
> this would pay the additional dividend of showing everybody that a
> significant group of transhumanists exists who are ready to put at least the
> relevant minor effort involved where their not-so-loud mouth is.

What's wrong with the TransBOINC team that has already been around?
http://www.intelligencerealm.com/aisystem/team_display.php?teamid=371

or the imminst.org team?
http://stats.kwsn.net/team.php?proj=wcg&teamid=4220

See also:
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=transhumanism at home+boinc&sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
"transhumanism at home"

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sat Jan  3 22:35:59 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 23:35:59 +0100
Subject: [ExI] [Hplus2] Folding@Home
In-Reply-To: <55ad6af70901031357l33cb39d7t873b930aa00843b8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <580930c20901031351q6797344br9d7b6c3319899427@mail.gmail.com>
	<55ad6af70901031357l33cb39d7t873b930aa00843b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20901031435ie12398bs1b4aebd096f76290@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 10:57 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> What's wrong with the TransBOINC team that has already been around?
> http://www.intelligencerealm.com/aisystem/team_display.php?teamid=371
>
> or the imminst.org team?
> http://stats.kwsn.net/team.php?proj=wcg&teamid=4220+


Well, nothing. Even though it is not entirely clear to me what the people
getting the computer cycles are really doing or who they are, I certainly
would be curious to learn more about that, a few links being broken by now.

> <http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat>
>
-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090103/d2868ec9/attachment.html>

From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Jan  3 23:59:08 2009
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 17:59:08 -0600
Subject: [ExI] [Hplus2] Folding@Home
In-Reply-To: <55ad6af70901031357l33cb39d7t873b930aa00843b8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <580930c20901031351q6797344br9d7b6c3319899427@mail.gmail.com>
	<55ad6af70901031357l33cb39d7t873b930aa00843b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FDA39AE3B8D04557977CE3D92A5DAE48@DFC68LF1>

The TransBOINC websie is defunct:  http://transboinc.googlepages.com 


Nlogo1.tif Natasha Vita-More

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Bryan Bishop
Sent: Saturday, January 03, 2009 3:57 PM
To: Hplus2 at yahoogroups.com
Cc: World Transhumanist Association Discussion List; ExI chat list;
extromega at googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [ExI] [Hplus2] Folding at Home

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 3:51 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thus, I am pleased to inform you that as a personal initiative I have 
> established a TranshumanistFoldingTeam within such project, whose 
> ?number is 157440, to which I strongly encourage all of you to 
> subscribe by offering your spare computing cycles, be they those of a 
> x86 CPU, or even more profitably those of an ATI or Nvidia GPU or of the
Cell processor in a PS3.
>
> If a sufficient critical mass of transhumanists around the world could 
> be involved, and collectively make the project's top ranking 
> contributors' list this would pay the additional dividend of showing 
> everybody that a significant group of transhumanists exists who are 
> ready to put at least the relevant minor effort involved where their
not-so-loud mouth is.

What's wrong with the TransBOINC team that has already been around?
http://www.intelligencerealm.com/aisystem/team_display.php?teamid=371

or the imminst.org team?
http://stats.kwsn.net/team.php?proj=wcg&teamid=4220

See also:
http://www.google.com/search?client=opera&rls=en&q=transhumanism at home+boinc&
sourceid=opera&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8
"transhumanism at home"

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
_______________________________________________
extropy-chat mailing list
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Sun Jan  4 00:28:13 2009
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 17:28:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] A SF Con just for Damien (Was: Re: I don't understand
	students: help !)
Message-ID: <2d6187670901031628r57bc741do6b44e5b825015e0a@mail.gmail.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:
You're thinking of chicks. No, wait, they're divided by clucks. Perhaps
ticks? No, that'd  be clocks and Clegg's. I have it--claques! Or is that too
playful?
>>>

I see a successor here to Terry Pratchett or perhaps Douglas Adams!  But
what would we call a science fiction convention dedicated to Damien?

DamienCon
BrodCon
theSpikeFest
AussieInAmericaCon
SardonicQuipCon
PlayOnWordsCon
TranscensionCon
PostMortalCon
LovesBarbaraCon
DamienBroderickLives!Con

Any other good names out there?

John  : )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090103/2d28db95/attachment.html>

From kanzure at gmail.com  Sun Jan  4 00:40:19 2009
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 18:40:19 -0600
Subject: [ExI] [Hplus2] Folding@Home
In-Reply-To: <FDA39AE3B8D04557977CE3D92A5DAE48@DFC68LF1>
References: <580930c20901031351q6797344br9d7b6c3319899427@mail.gmail.com>
	<55ad6af70901031357l33cb39d7t873b930aa00843b8@mail.gmail.com>
	<FDA39AE3B8D04557977CE3D92A5DAE48@DFC68LF1>
Message-ID: <55ad6af70901031640y7b221811qfb2aecfdecc0369b@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> The TransBOINC websie is defunct:  http://transboinc.googlepages.com

I'll put you in touch with Nathaniel, then:

Nathaniel Dube <njdube at gmail.com>

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Sun Jan  4 02:56:22 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 13:26:22 +1030
Subject: [ExI] [Hplus2] Folding@Home
In-Reply-To: <55ad6af70901031640y7b221811qfb2aecfdecc0369b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <580930c20901031351q6797344br9d7b6c3319899427@mail.gmail.com>
	<55ad6af70901031357l33cb39d7t873b930aa00843b8@mail.gmail.com>
	<FDA39AE3B8D04557977CE3D92A5DAE48@DFC68LF1>
	<55ad6af70901031640y7b221811qfb2aecfdecc0369b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0901031856u42df8999wbb25bdcae9a7e5d6@mail.gmail.com>

btw if you're a tech geek and you've never checked out Boinc, do it...

http://boinc.berkeley.edu/

It's free software for hosting volunteer computing projects (like
folding at home, seti, etc), not any particular project.

So if you have a cool idea that can use volunteer computing, you can
use Boinc as the infrastructure, check out this stuff:
http://boinc.berkeley.edu/trac/wiki/ProjectMain

It's really very cool looking stuff.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting
(http://emlynoregan.com is currently down, see
http://point7.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/scarcity-mode-emlynoregancom-is-down/)


2009/1/4 Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 5:59 PM, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
>> The TransBOINC websie is defunct:  http://transboinc.googlepages.com
>
> I'll put you in touch with Nathaniel, then:
>
> Nathaniel Dube <njdube at gmail.com>
>
> - Bryan
> http://heybryan.org/
> 1 512 203 0507
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com  Sun Jan  4 03:01:47 2009
From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 19:01:47 -0800
Subject: [ExI] I don't understand students: help !
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090103153206.02268728@satx.rr.com>
References: <469562.89145.qm@web110415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<c49b1db60901031316rb7a2507rc534e3e8f247c589@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090103153206.02268728@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c49b1db60901031901x43c3f6d1hf606eec7295370d3@mail.gmail.com>

Eh, I meant cliques, as you've sarcastically pointed out :)

*Kevin*


On 1/3/09, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
> At 02:16 PM 1/3/2009 -0700, Kevin H wrote:
>
>  Children regularly divide up into clicks, establish pecking orders
>>
>
> You're thinking of chicks. No, wait, they're divided by clucks. Perhaps
> ticks? No, that'd  be clocks and Clegg's. I have it--claques! Or is that too
> playful?
>
> But enough of this intellectual effort. I'm feeling peckish, and I haven't
> put my order in yet.
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090103/ad793ba6/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jan  4 03:18:56 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 21:18:56 -0600
Subject: [ExI] cliques
In-Reply-To: <c49b1db60901031901x43c3f6d1hf606eec7295370d3@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <469562.89145.qm@web110415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<c49b1db60901031316rb7a2507rc534e3e8f247c589@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090103153206.02268728@satx.rr.com>
	<c49b1db60901031901x43c3f6d1hf606eec7295370d3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090103211658.02292e78@satx.rr.com>

At 07:01 PM 1/3/2009 -0800, Kevin wrote:

>Eh, I meant cliques, as you've sarcastically pointed out :)

Heavens to Betsy, not sarcasm--whimsy. Punnish frivolity (of a rather 
labored kind no doubt). 



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Sun Jan  4 03:31:07 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 14:01:07 +1030
Subject: [ExI] MIT OpenCourseWare: Anyone want 6.001 Structure and
	Interpretation of Computer Programs?
Message-ID: <710b78fc0901031931n11576965wfd52c1d792f43787@mail.gmail.com>

I was looking at the MIT OpenCourseWare ( http://ocw.mit.edu/ ) last
year, and it looks useful. But, it's structured to be used as a uni
course. Many (not all) people would find it more useful if they could
access it freely, but in the context of "a course".

By this I mean, it'd be useful to have a cohort of other students
doing it at the same time with whom you could interact, it'd be useful
to have someone play tutor, and give feedback on questions,
assignments, etc. It'd be useful to have people available to help with
technical setup issues. It might be useful to have a place to swap
sharable resources.

Anyway, I thought I'd put my money (well actually my time) where my
mouth is, and offer to organise this for a first year computer science
course (for free, of course):

6.001 Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs
http://ocw.mit.edu/OcwWeb/Electrical-Engineering-and-Computer-Science/6-001Spring-2005/CourseHome/index.htm

Is that interesting to anyone? If a few people care and find it
useful, this can probably continue into more of the comp sci
curriculum later.

Note that I'm not offering to be a lecturer, that's already done in
the course material (and I wouldn't be competent). But I can help with
tech issues, help explain stuff, and organise group resources and
such.

This would be run as a semester 1 course, with weeks in the course
materials corresponding to weeks of semester 1.

Anyone who's interested, reply to me at my email address.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting
(http://emlynoregan.com is currently down, see
http://point7.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/scarcity-mode-emlynoregancom-is-down/)


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jan  4 03:50:04 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 03 Jan 2009 21:50:04 -0600
Subject: [ExI] MIT OpenCourseWare: Anyone want 6.001 Structure and
 Interpretation of Computer Programs?
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0901031931n11576965wfd52c1d792f43787@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <710b78fc0901031931n11576965wfd52c1d792f43787@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090103214920.022677e0@satx.rr.com>

At 02:01 PM 1/4/2009 +1030, Emlyn wrote:

>Anyway, I thought I'd put my money (well actually my time) where my
>mouth is, and offer to organise this for a first year computer science
>course (for free, of course):

Bravo! Great idea, and generous of you!

Damien Broderick




From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Sun Jan  4 04:02:49 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 14:32:49 +1030
Subject: [ExI] MIT OpenCourseWare: Anyone want 6.001 Structure and
	Interpretation of Computer Programs?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090103214920.022677e0@satx.rr.com>
References: <710b78fc0901031931n11576965wfd52c1d792f43787@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090103214920.022677e0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0901032002u2d72cf3v125a049ae9cb8029@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks. I hope some people are interested :-)

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting
(http://emlynoregan.com is currently down, see
http://point7.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/scarcity-mode-emlynoregancom-is-down/)


2009/1/4 Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>:
> At 02:01 PM 1/4/2009 +1030, Emlyn wrote:
>
>> Anyway, I thought I'd put my money (well actually my time) where my
>> mouth is, and offer to organise this for a first year computer science
>> course (for free, of course):
>
> Bravo! Great idea, and generous of you!
>
> Damien Broderick
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From msd001 at gmail.com  Sun Jan  4 05:24:12 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 00:24:12 -0500
Subject: [ExI] cliques
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090103211658.02292e78@satx.rr.com>
References: <469562.89145.qm@web110415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<c49b1db60901031316rb7a2507rc534e3e8f247c589@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090103153206.02268728@satx.rr.com>
	<c49b1db60901031901x43c3f6d1hf606eec7295370d3@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090103211658.02292e78@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240901032124x67c5f402mce5932d986b030c3@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> Heavens to Betsy, not sarcasm--whimsy. Punnish frivolity (of a rather
> labored kind no doubt).

You're going to punish Betsy to hard labor in the heavens?  Would that
be breaking asteroids at space-Leavenworth?

Oh wait: punnish... with two "n"


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Sun Jan  4 05:30:38 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 16:00:38 +1030
Subject: [ExI] cliques
In-Reply-To: <62c14240901032124x67c5f402mce5932d986b030c3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <469562.89145.qm@web110415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<c49b1db60901031316rb7a2507rc534e3e8f247c589@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090103153206.02268728@satx.rr.com>
	<c49b1db60901031901x43c3f6d1hf606eec7295370d3@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090103211658.02292e78@satx.rr.com>
	<62c14240901032124x67c5f402mce5932d986b030c3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0901032130v6b240fd8v716e71457cf585cc@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/4 Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com>:
> On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 10:18 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>> Heavens to Betsy, not sarcasm--whimsy. Punnish frivolity (of a rather
>> labored kind no doubt).
>
> You're going to punish Betsy to hard labor in the heavens?  Would that
> be breaking asteroids at space-Leavenworth?
>
> Oh wait: punnish... with two "n"

Damien is punnishing us all at the moment...

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting
(http://emlynoregan.com is currently down, see
http://point7.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/scarcity-mode-emlynoregancom-is-down/)


From sparge at gmail.com  Sun Jan  4 06:02:55 2009
From: sparge at gmail.com (Spargemeister)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 01:02:55 -0500
Subject: [ExI] [Hplus2] Folding@Home
In-Reply-To: <55ad6af70901031357l33cb39d7t873b930aa00843b8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <580930c20901031351q6797344br9d7b6c3319899427@mail.gmail.com>
	<55ad6af70901031357l33cb39d7t873b930aa00843b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d0901032202w9869c23l7e55596d81f447c9@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 3, 2009 at 4:57 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> What's wrong with the TransBOINC team that has already been around?
> http://www.intelligencerealm.com/aisystem/team_display.php?teamid=371
>
> or the imminst.org team?
> http://stats.kwsn.net/team.php?proj=wcg&teamid=4220

Or the Extropy.org team:

http://fah-web.stanford.edu/cgi-bin/main.py?qtype=teampage&teamnum=346

-Dave


From g.vatinno at agora.it  Sat Jan  3 22:29:32 2009
From: g.vatinno at agora.it (Gv)
Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 23:29:32 +0100
Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 64, Issue 2
In-Reply-To: <mailman.178.1231019494.96.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.178.1231019494.96.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <68575C26-75C2-4FF4-A388-FCC5E468A9EC@agora.it>

Amara has a baby!Maybe  it's possible call him Silvio...greetings  
from  Italy...gv ;)



Inviato da iPhone

Il giorno 03/gen/09, alle ore 22:51, extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org 
  ha scritto:

> Send extropy-chat mailing list submissions to
>    extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    extropy-chat-owner at lists.extropy.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of extropy-chat digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: Happy New Year! (Emlyn)
>   2. Amara is giving birth! (samantha)
>   3. Re: Amara is giving birth! (Gina Miller)
>   4. Re: Amara is giving birth! (MB)
>   5. Re: Amara is giving birth! (Eschatoon Magic)
>   6. Re: broadband in Oz (Stathis Papaioannou)
>   7. Re: recent Doctor Who (Tom Nowell)
>   8. Re: Amara is giving birth! (John Grigg)
>   9. Re: Amara is giving birth! (giovanni santost)
>  10. Re: Amara is giving birth! (samantha)
>  11. Re: battery breakthru (Jeff Davis)
>  12. Re: Amara is giving birth! (samantha)
>  13. Re: Amara is giving birth! (Jeff Davis)
>  14. Re: Amara is giving birth! (Emlyn)
>  15.  I don't understand students: help ! (Anna Taylor)
>  16. Soon Nano will be the way out of the coming Depression
>      (Frank McElligott)
>  17. The new Doctor (Jeremy Webb )
>  18. Re: Soon Nano will be the way out of the coming Depression
>      (Bryan Bishop)
>  19. Re: I don't understand students: help ! (Kevin H)
>  20. Re: I don't understand students: help ! (Damien Broderick)
>  21. Folding at Home (Stefano Vaj)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 17:02:33 +1030
> From: Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Happy New Year!
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Message-ID:
>    <710b78fc0901012232o3d7d0bf6q718ec862770bc32e at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> 2009/1/2 BillK <pharos at gmail.com>:
>> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 12:43 AM, Emlyn wrote:
>>>> On the BBC2 TV New year musical entertainment programme 'Jules
>>>> Hootenanny', after her performance the singer Annie Lennox had a  
>>>> brief
>>>> chat with the host.
>>>> Jules said 'And what is your recommendation for 2009?'
>>>> After a brief pause, Annie said, 'Well, 2009 is going to be a
>>>> catastrophic year. I recommend staying in bed'. Unsettled, trying  
>>>> to
>>>> make a joke of it, Jules said, 'So your recommendation for 2009  
>>>> is to
>>>> stay in bed!', then laughed and swiftly moved on to another guest.
>>>>
>>>> Unexpected serious comment on a light entertainment show.
>>>
>>> I like Annie Lennox, but that's super lame. I stand by my previous  
>>> exhortation.
>>>
>>
>>
>> <Grin> Well, of course Annie Lennox is not a noted financial analyst.
>>
>> I understood her to be saying that you might as well go to sleep and
>> wake up in 2010, missing all the bad stuff in 2009. What I thought
>> remarkable was that the realization of just how bad 2009 is going to
>> be is spreading through the general public, in spite of all the
>> government attempts to soothe their fears.
>>
>> Some analysts do agree with her opinion.
>> See:
>> <http://www.minyanville.com/articles/WMT-TGT-GE-C-djia-gm/index/a/20445 
>> >
>> Five Themes You Need to Know for 2009
>> Kevin Depew   Dec 31, 2008
>>
>> Final paragraph:
>> So there you have it. Only 366 days until 2010. That's the good news.
>> When all is said and done, perhaps the best thing that will be said  
>> of
>> 2009 is that it only lasted a year.
>> ------------
>>
>> BillK
>
> Perhaps I should have been more cautious in my phrasing. Try this:
>
> ---
> Please accept with no obligation, implied or implicit my best wishes
> for an environmentally conscious, socially responsible , low stress,
> non-addictive, gender neutral, celebration of the summer solstice
> holiday, practised within the most enjoyable traditions of the
> religious persuasion of your choice, or secular practices of your
> choice , with respect for the religious/secular persuasions and /or
> traditions of others, or their choice not to practice religious or
> secular traditions at all....................
>
> And a fiscally successful, personally fulfilling,and medically
> uncomplicated recognition of the onset of the generally accepted
> calendar year 2009, but not without due respect for the calendars of
> choice of other cultures whose contributions to society have helped
> make our Nation great, (not to imply that our Nation is necessarily
> greater than any other country), and without regard to the race,
> creed, colour, age, physical ability, religious faith, choice of
> computer platform, tool brand, automobile brand, favoured type of
> fermented alcohol-enhanced beverage or sexual preference of the
> wishee.
>
> (EULA: By accepting this greeting, you are accepting these terms. This
> greeting is subject to clarification or withdrawal, it is freely
> transferable with no alteration to the original greeting. It implies
> no promise by the wisher to actually implement any of the wishes for
> herself / himself or others, and is void where prohibited by law, and
> is revocable at the sole discretion of the wisher. Where required by
> law, this wish is warranted to perform as expected within the usual
> application of good tidings for a period of one year, or until the
> issuance of a subsequent holiday greeting, whichever comes first, and
> warranty is limited to replacement of these wishes or issuance of a
> new wish at the sole discretion of the wisher.)
> ---
>
> (not mine I'm afraid)
>
> -- 
> Emlyn
>
> http://emlynoregan.com - my home
> http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
> http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 01:01:24 -0800
> From: samantha <sjatkins at mac.com>
> Subject: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Message-ID: <495DD7E4.8010003 at mac.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Some of you may have seen this already but I just saw a status update
> from her on Facebook.  WOW!!!!  <bouncing off the walls>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 01:39:23 -0800
> From: "Gina Miller" <nanogirl at halcyon.com>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Message-ID: <8B23298D396E4D869891E89D6AA1108D at GinaSony>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> We are all thinking of you Amara. Congratulations! Yours,
>
>
> 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: samantha
>  To: ExI chat list
>  Sent: Friday, January 02, 2009 1:01 AM
>  Subject: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
>
>
>  Some of you may have seen this already but I just saw a status update
>  from her on Facebook.  WOW!!!!  <bouncing off the walls>
>  _______________________________________________
>  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/20090102/2c875ee1/attachment-0001.html 
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 06:32:54 -0500 (EST)
> From: "MB" <mbb386 at main.nc.us>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Message-ID: <1362.12.77.169.8.1230895974.squirrel at www.main.nc.us>
> Content-Type: text/plain;charset=utf-8
>
> Go Amara! Go Myrtle!  :)
>
> Happy New Year!
>
> MB
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:45:56 +0100
> From: "Eschatoon Magic" <eschatoon at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Message-ID:
>    <1fa8c3b90901020345s3e2a1fd1v51f9ec01947b4c13 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> Go Amara! According to recent intelligence our new friend will not be
> called Myrtle -- Amara has chosen a name and will announce it at due
> time.
>
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM, MB <mbb386 at main.nc.us> wrote:
>> Go Amara! Go Myrtle!  :)
>>
>> Happy New Year!
>>
>> MB
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>
>
>
> -- 
> Eschatoon Magic
> http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
> aka Giulio Prisco
> http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Sat, 3 Jan 2009 00:10:26 +1100
> From: "Stathis Papaioannou" <stathisp at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] broadband in Oz
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Message-ID:
>    <f21c22e30901020510p5ab17df5k7d60861ed7a2d875 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2009/1/2 Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>:
>> fwiw:
>>
>> <http://www.marketresearch.com/product/print/default.asp?g=1&productid=1539701 
>> >
>>
>> ...broadband penetration is proceeding at high speed in Australia. By
>> mid-2007 there were close to 4.5 million subscribers [pop. circa 20
>> million]. In the residential market this means a broadband  
>> penetration of
>> close to 64% in Internet households (46% of total households). In the
>> business market, this figure is over 80%.
>>
>> While the penetration of broadband in Australia is catching up with  
>> its
>> trading partners it is still lagging behind in the quality of  
>> broadband
>> provided by the operators, and in the price customers have to pay.  
>> The
>> majority of customers are still on services that provide only 256Kb/ 
>> s or
>> 512Kb/s. Telstra, however, does make an 8Mb/s available, but this  
>> is not a
>> guaranteed speed, only a best-effort service.
>
> Even worse than the slow and expensive and the almost-bungled new
> broadband network government initiative is the proposal for mandatory
> censorship of the Internet, as in China:
>
> http://www.zdnet.com.au/news/communications/soa/ISPs-Govt-porn-filters-could-cripple-internet-/0,130061791,339289857,00.htm
>
>
> -- 
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 18:28:15 +0000 (GMT)
> From: Tom Nowell <nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] recent Doctor Who
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Message-ID: <317272.38659.qm at web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Max wrote: "The Firefly series and the Serenity movie are the  
> creation of the
> marvelous Joss Whedon. Since he hasn't been mentioned in the thread,
> I'm assuming you don't know. He created Buffy: The Vampire Slayer --
> one of the most consistently entertaining and well written TV shows
> ever, and has recently been writing comics, including the excellent
> Astonishing X-Men, a Buffy Season 8 comic, Fray, and Runaways.
>
> If there were to a be a genuinely transhumanist TV series, Whedon is
> the fellow I'd like to write it."
>
> Well, Dollhouse (Joss Whedon's new show, due to air in the US soon)  
> has some transhumanist themes - the show's plot is built around  
> people (or "dolls") who work for an agency that changes their  
> personalities and memories. Each episode, agents go undercover  
> totally believing in the cover identity that's been put into them.  
> Seeing as characters in Buffy and Angel regularly philosophised  
> about the work they do, and Firefly had frequent discussions about  
> how they got paid and with Shepherd Book about their work, I imagine  
> there will be discussions about the implications of the  
> neurotechnologies used on them.
>
> I reckon when some future neurotechnology starts serisouly touching  
> on questions of memory and personality, lazy journalists will pepper  
> their articles with quotes from Dollhouse, seeing as every newspaper  
> column I read these days seems to have at least two mass media  
> references per article.
>
> Now, if only we can get him to do a show with nano- and info-  
> technology in overdrive, we might get a quote for every area of  
> transhumanism....
>
> Tom
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:47:49 -0700
> From: "John Grigg" <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Message-ID:
>    <2d6187670901021147u265c0af9qa3e948abdf768a02 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Great news!!  Greetings to the brand new little human being!!  You  
> will
> witness such wonders during your hopefully very very long lifetime.
>
> John Grigg : )
>
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Eschatoon Magic  
> <eschatoon at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Go Amara! According to recent intelligence our new friend will not be
>> called Myrtle -- Amara has chosen a name and will announce it at due
>> time.
>>
>> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM, MB <mbb386 at main.nc.us> wrote:
>>> Go Amara! Go Myrtle!  :)
>>>
>>> Happy New Year!
>>>
>>> MB
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> extropy-chat mailing list
>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Eschatoon Magic
>> http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
>> aka Giulio Prisco
>> http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090102/152c5d68/attachment-0001.html 
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2009 12:23:14 -0800 (PST)
> From: giovanni santost <santostasigio at yahoo.com>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Message-ID: <923751.72052.qm at web31306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Best wishes to Amara and her little daughter.
> Giovanni
>
> --- On Fri, 1/2/09, John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> From: John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
> To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Date: Friday, January 2, 2009, 1:47 PM
>
>
> Great news!!? Greetings to the brand new little human being!!? You  
> will witness such wonders during your hopefully very very long  
> lifetime.
>
> John Grigg : )
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 4:45 AM, Eschatoon Magic  
> <eschatoon at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Go Amara! According to recent intelligence our new friend will not be
> called Myrtle -- Amara has chosen a name and will announce it at due
> time.
>
>
>
>
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM, MB <mbb386 at main.nc.us> wrote:
>> Go Amara! Go Myrtle! ?:)
>>
>> Happy New Year!
>>
>> MB
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Eschatoon Magic
> http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
> aka Giulio Prisco
> http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090102/87cf3bb5/attachment-0001.html 
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:40:25 -0800
> From: samantha <sjatkins at mac.com>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
> To: santostasigio at yahoo.com, ExI chat list
>    <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Message-ID:


From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Sun Jan  4 08:33:49 2009
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 00:33:49 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] I don't understand students: help !
In-Reply-To: <c49b1db60901031316rb7a2507rc534e3e8f247c589@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <867577.22002.qm@web110408.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Funny how easy it is to make a joke.  The issue is still in regard.  The issue is whether technology is causing children to be less sociable.  Anybody have any opinions as opposed to snard remarks.

Just curious
Anna:)


--- On Sat, 1/3/09, Kevin H <kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com> wrote:

> From: Kevin H <kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] I don't understand students: help !
> To: femmechakra at yahoo.ca, "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Received: Saturday, January 3, 2009, 4:16 PM
> In my opinion, the school and classroom isn't the great
> platform for
> socializing children as it's been cracked up to be. 
> Children regularly
> divide up into clicks, establish pecking orders and
> hierarchies, and this is
> a *result* of having individuals forced into the same area.
>  We see exactly
> the same thing occur in prisons.
> Socializing needs to occur on a *voluntary* basis.  But, in
> the meantime,
> these secondary goals tend to get in the way of the primary
> aim of
> education: attaining knowledge.
> 
> On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 7:17 PM, Anna Taylor
> <femmechakra at yahoo.ca> wrote:
> 
> > Bryan Bishop wrote Sat Dec 20 02:29:24 UTC 2008:
> >
> > >>There have been many proposals on this list
> and in the past from other
> > >>sources for all sorts of community learning
> centers, libraries to get
> > >>more involved in new forms of archiving
> information to be displayed to
> > >>youngsters, fablabs as a truly humanitarian
> education (*do* stuff,
> > >>act, that sort of thing), etc. I also think
> this falls in line with
> > >>some of the proposals regarding switching over
> to teachers competing
> > >>for specific students, which our Hungarian
> list subscribers might be
> > >>able to comment more on (m1n3r?).
> >
> > I wrote On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Anna Taylor
> <femmechakra at
> > yahoo.ca>
> >
> > >Really? What happens to the social aspect of it?
> Students today as I see
> > >them are not very sociable and you want to make
> computers more unclosed >in
> > a 4 wall room? Doesn't that make it more secluded?
> How are are people
> > >supposed to learn if not surrounded by different
> people?
> >
> > Don't get me wrong, I'm a strong supporter of
> self-education with the use
> > of technology and I don't see anything wrong with
> scholars searching for
> > specific students threw the use of technology. I
> wonder about the idea of
> > technology alienating children.  How a computer can
> become more familiar
> > than another human being?  Is this what I would teach
> my child if I wanted
> > to bear children?  Imho...It's one thing to look
> at it from the point of
> > single/married as opposed to looking at the point of
> view of family, I'm
> > just curious to get some point of views.
> >
> > Thanks,
> > Anna
> >
> > PS As I recently just started again to teach young
> children in public
> > schools how to dance and have to admit the experience
> wasn't on my top ten
> > list, I am simply asking for advice.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >     
> __________________________________________________________________
> > Instant Messaging, free SMS, sharing photos and
> more... Try the new Yahoo!
> > Canada Messenger at
> http://ca.beta.messenger.yahoo.com/
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >


      __________________________________________________________________
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 pharos at gmail.com  Sun Jan  4 09:29:11 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 09:29:11 +0000
Subject: [ExI] I don't understand students: help !
In-Reply-To: <867577.22002.qm@web110408.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
References: <c49b1db60901031316rb7a2507rc534e3e8f247c589@mail.gmail.com>
	<867577.22002.qm@web110408.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0901040129x3eac7359yb2cb53e20eb79ee4@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 8:33 AM, Anna Taylor  wrote:
> Funny how easy it is to make a joke.  The issue is still in regard.  The issue is whether technology is
> causing children to be less sociable.
>



'No' is the answer to that specific question.

The young people seem to be developing a 'hive-mind' where they are
constantly in touch with their friends.
Quote:
The researchers found that most young people almost always associate
with people they already know in their offline lives through school or
sports, but cell phones, instant messaging and social network sites
such as MySpace and Facebook allow them to be in nearly constant
touch.

<http://psychcentral.com/news/2008/12/25/kids-learn-social-skills-online/3557.html>

There are other problems with this developing lifestyle, but
sociability isn't one of them.  :)

For example, if you ask a teen her opinion on something new, she will
probably be unable to answer until she has contacted the 'hive-mind'
to get the group consensus view on it. Being part of the peer group is
extremely important to teens.

Another possible problem is that some suggest that this new online
generation has the attention span of a gnat, leading to the
trivializing of everything. No deep thinkers here, matey,    Ooh look,
shiny new Youtube video!

And so on...........


BillK


From estropico at gmail.com  Sun Jan  4 15:20:10 2009
From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 15:20:10 +0000
Subject: [ExI] ExtroBritannia's January event
Message-ID: <4eaaa0d90901040720x54bd804ei9a4581b4ad38ba31@mail.gmail.com>

Informal lunchtime get-together: ideas and plans for the H+ year ahead

The next ExtroBritannia event is scheduled for Saturday the 17th of
January 2009; 1:00pm - 2:00pm. Venue: the Penderell's Oak pub, 283
High Holborn, London WC1V 7HP (nearest tube stop: Holborn). The event
is free and everyone's welcome.

Anyone interested in Transhumanism and/or Extropian themes is welcome
to join a lunchtime gathering in the pub that's been described as the
spiritual home of transhumanism in the UK. If it's your first
ExtroBritannia, look out for a table with a copy displayed of Eric
Drexler's book, "Engines of creation". This get-together is being
scheduled to fit in the lunch break of the day-long "Weird science"
event organised by the Centre For Inquiry, London, that's taking place
that day in the nearby Conway Hall. During our get-together, we'll
have the chance to discuss ideas for H+ meetings and activities in the
UK later in the year. We can also review how H+ fits with the Bad
Science approach, and possible synergies with the Centre for Inquiry.

Note: anyone who wants to attend the lectures of the Bad Science event
will need to register separately - and pay a small fee to the CFI
London organisers. Use the folowing link:
http://cfilondon.org/2008/10/26/weird-science-event-with-ben-goldacre-richard-wiseman-chris-french-and-stephen-law/

Note: Participants from the Bad Science event will be retiring to
Penderell's Oak after the Conway Hall lectures, from 4pm, so there
will be a chance to take part in discussions at that stage too.

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


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun Jan  4 15:57:34 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 16:57:34 +0100
Subject: [ExI] [wta-talk] Folding@Home
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LNX.1.10.0901031407570.8907@bob.slackware.com>
References: <580930c20901031351q6797344br9d7b6c3319899427@mail.gmail.com>
	<alpine.LNX.1.10.0901031407570.8907@bob.slackware.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20901040757h6e074cfax1eaf1a133c824d70@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 6:30 AM, M.Simons <msimons at slackware.com> wrote:
> I'm currently running www.worldcommunitygrid.org projects - and
> recommend them because they're easy for the average person to
> install and run.  In addition, their website, etc. is geared towards
> the average joe, so if you want to install it on your family &
> friends computers, etc. it should not be an uphill battle to explain
> it.

I welcome and praise all distributed computing initiative, but perhaps
transhumanists would get a little more more collective visibility by
concentrating the efforts.

In this respect, I am partial to the Folding at Home project for three reasons:
- Stanford U is a very credible institution having already published
significant results, and proteomics is a more obviously
transhumanism-related issue than the exploration of arcane
mathematical space or weather model, interesting as the latter may be;
- the clients include a display making somewhat "visible" what the
processing taking place is doing;
- the PS3, of which I have a couple always on, comes with Folding at Home
out-of-the-box, and delivers a full order of magnitude more
performance that your average instance of the x86 client; more
importantly, for PCs equipped with hi-perf Nvidia or ATI GPUs there
are now GPU clients delivering a more or less equivalent punch per
watt and gigaherz and once again in a whole different league than
traditional distributed computing on Intel CPUs.

Setups and configs, needless to say, are really a breeze.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From benboc at lineone.net  Sun Jan  4 17:48:28 2009
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 17:48:28 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
In-Reply-To: <mailman.178.1231019494.96.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.178.1231019494.96.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <4960F66C.3030400@lineone.net>

Eschatoon Magic" <eschatoon at gmail.com> exclaimed:

 > Go Amara! According to recent intelligence our new friend will not be 
called Myrtle -- Amara has chosen a name and will announce it at due 
time. On Fri, Jan 2, 2009 at 12:32 PM, MB <mbb386 at main.nc.us> wrote:

 > > Go Amara! Go Myrtle!   :)
 > >

Phew!

For a moment, I thought she was giving birth to a turtle!

Congratulations, Amara, and welcome to the world, new sprog.

Ben Zaiboc


From m1n3r2 at gmail.com  Sun Jan  4 18:27:37 2009
From: m1n3r2 at gmail.com (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Tam=E1s_Pardy?=)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 19:27:37 +0100
Subject: [ExI] I don't understand students: help !
In-Reply-To: <55ad6af70812191829k187a5ddh489481c85c472378@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0812181946s61e0c4ecoea1066d412f380ed@mail.gmail.com>
	<504681.88503.qm@web110407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
	<55ad6af70812191829k187a5ddh489481c85c472378@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a7ef85a0901041027r3dae5d96o41b73d09f37db864@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Dec 20, 2008 at 3:29 AM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 19, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Anna Taylor <femmechakra at yahoo.ca> wrote:

> some of the proposals regarding switching over to teachers competing
> for specific students, which our Hungarian list subscribers might be
> able to comment more on (m1n3r?).

Eh, I'd be glad to, but exactly what aspect of it are you interested in?

/* WARNING! personal opinion, might be valuable
As for convergence towards Europe, Hungary has succeeded in
establishing the two-level final exams (ordinary, advanced=ordinary
before the 90's as some professors say:) and the infamous BSc, MSc,
Phd degrees (well, people who have higher education with the age of
>40 tend to dislike this system and would rather recall undivided
university education). I'm not sure that the lack of extensive lexical
knowledge is bad. I admit I always hated analysing poems and slept
through literature lessons but I do read books and now find pleasure
in writing as well. But even if they always kicked me in the back I
wouldn't like poetry. Making it possible for students at high school
(after the age of, say 16) to select towards which direction they want
to move is truly a viable solution. It is hard to decide which
knowledge is, or is not useful. One thing, however, seems most sad to
me. It is that we, students of sciences know a lot about national and
foreign literature and some of us are truly good at Hungarian grammar.
People at the arts faculty, however, don't give a damn to mathematics,
physics, chemistry and usually only survive at high school. I'm not a
fan of maths and physics, but it is definitely necessary to learn
sciences to have a healthy view of the world around us. Well, to sum
up, all comes down to exigency. This is something that has to be, to
use a word from programming, implemented:) And if parents are
unwilling to teach their children how to be diligent, who will? The
state? Come now, it's not socialism anymore=D
end of personal opinion*/

//Note: I'm not around the list most of the times (exams...), only
have a glimpse on it sometimes.

Regards,
Tom


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sun Jan  4 20:48:39 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins)
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 12:48:39 -0800
Subject: [ExI] YES! to Transhumanism
Message-ID: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>

http://cosmeng.org/index.php/YES!_to_Transhumanism

YES! to Transhumanism

>From Order of Cosmic Engineers

YES! to Transhumanism

Transhumanism is both a reason-based worldview and a cultural movement that
affirms the possibility and desirability, for those who choose it, of
fundamentally improving the human condition by means of science and
technology. Transhumanists seek the continuation and acceleration of the
evolution of intelligent life beyond its currently human form and human
limitations by means of science and technology, guided by life-promoting
principles and values.

Visionary, bold and fun. That is what transhumanism has always been.

Transhumanists have always sought personal improvement; to free themselves
from all the limitations of biology; to radically upgrade their mental and
physical faculties; and to beat a path to the stars.

This is what transhumanism is. What it has always been. This is what
transhumanism ought to continue to be.

With due concern, we fully and deeply realize that there are, have always
been and will continue to be complex scientific, technical, cultural, moral,
societal and political challenges to deal with. They require careful
assessment, planning, and leadership. These challenges need to be met head on
with due courage, forbearance, focused attention, rationality, compassion,
empathy and wisdom.

We must and will continue to do our best to overcome them. We will persevere
to mitigate their potential and actual dangers, while safeguarding the
maximizing of their potential and actual benefits.

Some however are advancing that transhumanists should abandon their efforts
at realizing -or even promoting- their radical futurist worldview... in favor
of exclusively -or at least primarily- focusing on today's world issues.
Transhumanist organizations should, in their view, become nothing more than
nice, soft spoken, moderate, ethical, responsible and politically correct
quasi-mainstream social clubs.

To such suggestions and proposals, we unequivocally say: NO!

As citizens, we have to and will do our best to play an active and positive
role in today's world.

But that is not what transhumanism at its origin and core is about. There are
numerous suitable organizations within which transhumanist citizens can and
should play an active and positive role in today's world, including
organizations in the environmental movement, political parties and movements,
philanthropic organizations, research institutes, commercial enterprises.

We however categorically refuse to abandon our core original transhumanist
vision of a radically better future for our species and ourselves.

We say YES to transhumanism. To the undiluted, unadulterated, uncompromising
original core of transhumanism, that is.

This Position Statement YES! to Transhumanism was collaboratively authored by
members of the Order of Cosmic Engineers - http://cosmeng.org/. 
_______________________________________________
tt mailing list
tt at postbiota.org
http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/tt



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jan  4 22:06:27 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:06:27 -0600
Subject: [ExI] YES! to Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>

Is it only me, or does "Order of Cosmic Engineers" sound like 
something 8-10 year old boys would be avid to join by clipping the 
coupon on the back of their Kellogg's packet? (Free plastic raygun 
with every 20 packet tops!)

Damien Broderick



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun Jan  4 22:25:49 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 23:25:49 +0100
Subject: [ExI] YES! to Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20901041425g1d5e6221wd3b45e97b3812c06@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:06 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> Is it only me, or does "Order of Cosmic Engineers" sound like something 8-10
> year old boys would be avid to join by clipping the coupon on the back of
> their Kellogg's packet? (Free plastic raygun with every 20 packet tops!)

Yes, this is the idea.

And at the same time it is also a deadly serious initiative, to which
I am honoured to participate together with a non-negligible part of
the international transhumanist Gotha. :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From santostasigio at yahoo.com  Sun Jan  4 22:28:08 2009
From: santostasigio at yahoo.com (giovanni santost)
Date: Sun, 4 Jan 2009 14:28:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] YES! to Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <883821.24079.qm@web31303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

I like the name a lot,?and what is wrong about something that would light up the imagination of 8-10 years old boys (or girls)?
I think being a transhumanist is? about using the rational discrimination of an adult (well, very few adults have really any discrimination at all)?and keeping, at the same time,?all the enthusiasm? and imagination of a child .
I love to see my boy amazement for everything around him (he is only 2), it inspires me everyday.
Giovanni


--- On Sun, 1/4/09, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

From: Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>
Subject: Re: [ExI] YES! to Transhumanism
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Date: Sunday, January 4, 2009, 4:06 PM

Is it only me, or does "Order of Cosmic Engineers" sound like
something 8-10 year old boys would be avid to join by clipping the coupon on the
back of their Kellogg's packet? (Free plastic raygun with every 20 packet
tops!)

Damien Broderick

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



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090104/f81e5b26/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jan  4 22:57:31 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:57:31 -0600
Subject: [ExI] YES! to Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <580930c20901041425g1d5e6221wd3b45e97b3812c06@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901041425g1d5e6221wd3b45e97b3812c06@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090104164532.02552408@satx.rr.com>

At 11:25 PM 1/4/2009 +0100, Stefano wrote:

>Damien Broderick:
> > Is it only me, or does "Order of Cosmic Engineers" sound like 
> something 8-10
> > year old boys would be avid to join by clipping the coupon on the back of
> > their Kellogg's packet? (Free plastic raygun with every 20 packet tops!)
>
>Yes, this is the idea.
>
>And at the same time it is also a deadly serious initiative, to which
>I am honoured to participate...

I've ruffled the feathers of more than one Cosmic Engineer with my 
blunt question, but it was meant constructively. To my ear and eye, 
the organization's name is so self-defeatingly ridiculous that 
there'd be no point in disguising my reaction. If some are 
offended--despite my own long transhumanist sympathies--brace 
yourself for the gales of derision from the Appleyards, McKibbens, 
Horgans, and the like.

The worth of the program is irrelevant to this PR point. Nobody 
laughing scornfully at the name is going to get as far as the website.

The inner cognoscenti might see it as a humorous gag aimed at Papal 
Knights, Illuminati, Masonic Orders, WoW guilds, etc, but most 
journalists and commentators will make comments exactly like mine, 
above (which is the point I was making). Remember that sf fans and 
Trekkies routinely get called "anoraks" and worse by mocking journalists.

Damien Broderick 



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun Jan  4 23:17:48 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 00:17:48 +0100
Subject: [ExI] YES! to Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090104164532.02552408@satx.rr.com>
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901041425g1d5e6221wd3b45e97b3812c06@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104164532.02552408@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20901041517u5f5c4db5q6bae869906809d72@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> The inner cognoscenti might see it as a humorous gag aimed at Papal Knights,
> Illuminati, Masonic Orders, WoW guilds, etc, but most journalists and
> commentators will make comments exactly like mine, above (which is the point
> I was making). Remember that sf fans and Trekkies routinely get called
> "anoraks" and worse by mocking journalists.

In a world crazy for World of Warcraft, Dungeon and Dragons and Harry
Potter, and where extreme fiction has done much more to spread
relevant H+ memes than scholarly essays, I think that the
tongue-in-cheek "game" of creating a kind of Internet-based guild or
chivalrous order with funny hierarchies, insignia and so forth, yet
with a visionary and radical agenda, may be more attractive to a
broader and younger public than more "respectable" if not not
sanctimonious initiatives, without adversely affecting too much the
personal "reputation" of those who accept to play a role within it and
their participation to other ventures, as in my case the Associazione
Italiana Transumanisti, which are active in the sphere of more
traditional and "political" activism.

And then, if it does succeed, journalists and commentators are not
going to be a problem.

Wasn't it entirely stupid, unprofessional and ridiculous to call a
computer operating system "Linux" and take a penguin as its symbol?
What serious business or educational
institution could ever take it into consideration?

--
Stefano Vaj


From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Jan  5 00:07:11 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Sun, 04 Jan 2009 16:07:11 -0800
Subject: [ExI] YES! to Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090104164532.02552408@satx.rr.com>
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901041425g1d5e6221wd3b45e97b3812c06@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104164532.02552408@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <49614F2F.5060309@mac.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 11:25 PM 1/4/2009 +0100, Stefano wrote:
> 
>> Damien Broderick:
>> > Is it only me, or does "Order of Cosmic Engineers" sound like 
>> something 8-10
>> > year old boys would be avid to join by clipping the coupon on the 
>> back of
>> > their Kellogg's packet? (Free plastic raygun with every 20 packet 
>> tops!)
>>
>> Yes, this is the idea.
>>
>> And at the same time it is also a deadly serious initiative, to which
>> I am honoured to participate...
> 
> I've ruffled the feathers of more than one Cosmic Engineer with my blunt 
> question, but it was meant constructively. To my ear and eye, the 
> organization's name is so self-defeatingly ridiculous that there'd be no 
> point in disguising my reaction. If some are offended--despite my own 
> long transhumanist sympathies--brace yourself for the gales of derision 
> from the Appleyards, McKibbens, Horgans, and the like.

Your forthright insights are one of the things we love you for, Damien.
I know that pretty much everyone in OCE is aware and very appreciative 
of your many wonderful contributions.  I don't myself see why the name 
is so outrageous except it the immediacy of our all too human current 
ineptitude for so grand an implied task.  But that is part of the point. 
  There is no limit on what human intelligence may transform into 
itself, or more likely to some, what the intelligences we create will be 
able to do.

> 
> The worth of the program is irrelevant to this PR point. Nobody laughing 
> scornfully at the name is going to get as far as the website.
> 

Why would we worry so much about those who may be stopped by something 
so relatively small?

> The inner cognoscenti might see it as a humorous gag aimed at Papal 
> Knights, Illuminati, Masonic Orders, WoW guilds, etc, but most 
> journalists and commentators will make comments exactly like mine, above 
> (which is the point I was making). 

I consider calling it an "Order of X" a mark of serious dedication 
rather than any sort of gag.  Perhaps some will find that very amusing. 
  Well then, so be it.

- samantha


From eschatoon at gmail.com  Mon Jan  5 07:49:19 2009
From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 08:49:19 +0100
Subject: [ExI] YES! to Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090104164532.02552408@satx.rr.com>
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901041425g1d5e6221wd3b45e97b3812c06@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104164532.02552408@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90901042349m310bd348j2b192c3fb545f98e@mail.gmail.com>

Damien: it is not a bug, it is a feature!

The term "Order"  is, as you say in the last paragraph, a
tongue-in-cheek allusion to medieval epic tales, Templars, Papal
Knights, Illuminati, Masonic Orders, WoW guilds, etc. Of course most
journalists and commentators will make comments exactly like yours. So
what?

We thought of terms like Institute, Society, Association, etc., but
they looked too much pompous and mainstream. I prefer the current
name, transhumanism is meant to be fun.

Don't worry, all Cosmic Engineers love and admire you, and take your
criticism in a constructive spirit.

The Appleyards, McKibbens, Horgans, and the like will of course hate
and criticize us. What else is new? I would be much more concerned if
they did not criticize us. If there is one thing that I have learned
in life, is that trying to appease the enemy is never a good strategy.

G.

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:57 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 11:25 PM 1/4/2009 +0100, Stefano wrote:
>
>> Damien Broderick:
>> > Is it only me, or does "Order of Cosmic Engineers" sound like something
>> > 8-10
>> > year old boys would be avid to join by clipping the coupon on the back
>> > of
>> > their Kellogg's packet? (Free plastic raygun with every 20 packet tops!)
>>
>> Yes, this is the idea.
>>
>> And at the same time it is also a deadly serious initiative, to which
>> I am honoured to participate...
>
> I've ruffled the feathers of more than one Cosmic Engineer with my blunt
> question, but it was meant constructively. To my ear and eye, the
> organization's name is so self-defeatingly ridiculous that there'd be no
> point in disguising my reaction. If some are offended--despite my own long
> transhumanist sympathies--brace yourself for the gales of derision from the
> Appleyards, McKibbens, Horgans, and the like.
>
> The worth of the program is irrelevant to this PR point. Nobody laughing
> scornfully at the name is going to get as far as the website.
>
> The inner cognoscenti might see it as a humorous gag aimed at Papal Knights,
> Illuminati, Masonic Orders, WoW guilds, etc, but most journalists and
> commentators will make comments exactly like mine, above (which is the point
> I was making). Remember that sf fans and Trekkies routinely get called
> "anoraks" and worse by mocking journalists.
>
> Damien Broderick
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
aka Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco


From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Mon Jan  5 09:13:09 2009
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 02:13:09 -0700
Subject: [ExI] YES! to Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90901042349m310bd348j2b192c3fb545f98e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901041425g1d5e6221wd3b45e97b3812c06@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104164532.02552408@satx.rr.com>
	<1fa8c3b90901042349m310bd348j2b192c3fb545f98e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2d6187670901050113s820f587p7ad699a39993bb1b@mail.gmail.com>

I like that the Order of Cosmic Engineers is not ashamed of the term
"transhumanism."

John  : )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090105/b135308a/attachment.html>

From eschatoon at gmail.com  Mon Jan  5 09:21:23 2009
From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:21:23 +0100
Subject: [ExI] YES! to Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670901050113s820f587p7ad699a39993bb1b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901041425g1d5e6221wd3b45e97b3812c06@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104164532.02552408@satx.rr.com>
	<1fa8c3b90901042349m310bd348j2b192c3fb545f98e@mail.gmail.com>
	<2d6187670901050113s820f587p7ad699a39993bb1b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90901050121x5a830ca4ye0cf9d88b50020f2@mail.gmail.com>

We are, indeed, not ashamed at all. On the contrary, we are proud to
call ourselves Transhumanists. Transhumanists is what we are.

Of course the term may not always be the best one to use in different
PR and outreach scenarios, and it is important to think carefully of
how to package introductory messages intended for different audiences,
but this does not change the fact that we are, and we are proud to be,
transhumanists.

G.

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:13 AM, John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I like that the Order of Cosmic Engineers is not ashamed of the term
> "transhumanism."
>
> John  : )
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>



-- 
Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
aka Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco


From eschatoon at gmail.com  Mon Jan  5 09:23:02 2009
From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 10:23:02 +0100
Subject: [ExI] YES! to Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <883821.24079.qm@web31303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
	<883821.24079.qm@web31303.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90901050123p2356669di82c316f9a2477d2d@mail.gmail.com>

This is a great characterization of transhumanism Giovanni! We should
let the child in us grow, but not die.

G.

On Sun, Jan 4, 2009 at 11:28 PM, giovanni santost
<santostasigio at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I like the name a lot, and what is wrong about something that would light up
> the imagination of 8-10 years old boys (or girls)?
> I think being a transhumanist is  about using the rational discrimination of
> an adult (well, very few adults have really any discrimination at all) and
> keeping, at the same time, all the enthusiasm  and imagination of a child .
> I love to see my boy amazement for everything around him (he is only 2), it
> inspires me everyday.
-- 
Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
aka Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco


From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Jan  5 11:10:30 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 22:10:30 +1100
Subject: [ExI] YES! to Transhumanism
In-Reply-To: <49614F2F.5060309@mac.com>
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901041425g1d5e6221wd3b45e97b3812c06@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104164532.02552408@satx.rr.com>
	<49614F2F.5060309@mac.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30901050310i434e951ck847e05ad714fcab5@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/5 samantha <sjatkins at mac.com>:

> Your forthright insights are one of the things we love you for, Damien.
> I know that pretty much everyone in OCE is aware and very appreciative of
> your many wonderful contributions.  I don't myself see why the name is so
> outrageous except it the immediacy of our all too human current ineptitude
> for so grand an implied task.  But that is part of the point.  There is no
> limit on what human intelligence may transform into itself, or more likely
> to some, what the intelligences we create will be able to do.

I think Damien's point was that the name will sound outrageous to
outsiders, which is a problem if you care about PR, but not a problem
if you don't.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From dharris234 at mindspring.com  Mon Jan  5 13:55:44 2009
From: dharris234 at mindspring.com (David C. Harris)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 05:55:44 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
In-Reply-To: <495EA5E9.8060609@mac.com>
References: <923751.72052.qm@web31306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<495EA5E9.8060609@mac.com>
Message-ID: <49621160.3050707@mindspring.com>

samantha wrote:
>
> I just saw this facebook status update from her sister Nina.
>
> "Nina is the aunt of a healthy baby girl today!"
>
> I haven't heard any other detail yet but I expect mother and daughter 
> are resting.
>
> - samantha
I'd been thinking a lot about Amara and "Myrtle" today.  I'd been 
struggling to reach the frontiers of  home computing with a quad 
processor 8 Gigabyte RAM computer networked to specialized lesser 
computers. The usual unexpected hurdles gave me time to wonder "gee, 
Amara must be going into labor soon.  I wonder how she's doing...".  
Today I finally got my Linux computer to give "birth" to a virtualized 
XP desktop, and I started thinking of the things that would no longer 
have to be dual booted.  One of them was Second Life.  And that lead to 
reading the transcript(s) of Amara's baby shower and experiences and 
thoughts, and the footnotes to her talk.  And that lead me to the recent 
ExI messages and the wonderful news that she has succeeded in having a 
healthy baby girl.

Congratulations, Amara!  In pursuing a deep desire you have also 
educated a lot of people, including me, and touched our hearts.  Thank  
you, for sharing you and your precious little girl.  May you both (and 
we) live long and prosper!

   -- David Harris, Palo Alto


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Jan  5 15:38:58 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 09:38:58 -0600
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name? (was: YES! to Transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30901050310i434e951ck847e05ad714fcab5@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901041425g1d5e6221wd3b45e97b3812c06@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104164532.02552408@satx.rr.com>
	<49614F2F.5060309@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30901050310i434e951ck847e05ad714fcab5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090105084447.023fcb90@satx.rr.com>

At 10:10 PM 1/5/2009 +1100, Stathis wrote:

>[samantha:]
>
> > ... I don't myself see why the name is so
> > outrageous except it the immediacy of our all too human current ineptitude
> > for so grand an implied task.  But that is part of the point.  There is no
> > limit on what human intelligence may transform into itself, or more likely
> > to some, what the intelligences we create will be able to do.
>
>I think Damien's point was that the name will sound outrageous to
>outsiders,

Yes, but (sorry, Cosmic Engineers) not so much 
"outrageous" as "puerile", "laughable", "instantly dismissable".

>which is a problem if you care about PR, but not a problem
>if you don't.

Pretty much what I meant, yes.

The subcultures of science fiction and militant 
atheism provide some hints on how this works in 
the real world. For decades, sf fans, sometimes 
wearing propeller beanies or Spock ears, have 
gathered at conventions with pleasantly silly 
names like Bubonicon, Rustycon, Nullus Anxietus, 
LeakyCon, PulpFest, Gaylaxicon, Windycon, etc. 
This is lighthearted and enjoyable, in-group 
joshing, faintly self-mocking, slightly ?pater la 
bourgeoisie. They've published fanzines with 
equally silly titles and cartoons. This is private fun-at-home. Good on 'em.

By contrast, when some atheists pompously (or was 
it also, cough, lightheartedly?) dubbed 
themselves Brights, they were immediately pelted 
with dung, and no wonder. This was a PR disaster 
of an absolutely predictable kind. However, when 
some wit invented the Flying Spaghetti Monster, 
it was funny and confronting, and grew in 
folklore into a real challenge to the magical 
thinking and pompous self-importance of the 
"faith communities"--but notice that this gag was 
directed *against* the people with funny hats, 
the everyday loonies with their invisible friends 
who were suddenly caught off guard.

So is "The Order of Cosmic Engineers" a private, 
insiderly merriment, a piss-take as Aussies would 
put it? Or an attempt to offset what some see as 
a drift toward prim, watering-down normalization 
by the World Transhumanist Association? Or, 
indeed, a frank appeal to the inner eight-year 
old or WoW player, a PR feature not a bug?

Since the group's intention appears to be 
genuinely and indeed cosmically serious--an 
attempt to build a sort of god-free and rational 
equivalent to a religion (as the Prospectus makes 
clear)--I suggest it's worth thinking this through as carefully as possible.

Names and titles are loaded with baggage, not 
always packed by the namer. Ayn Rand took a 
calculated gamble with "the virtue of 
selfishness" and in my view fumbled it, although 
it was eye-catching. I rather doubt the 
Objectivists would have done as (marginally) well 
as they did if she'd named her movement The Order 
of Selfish Greedy Egoists, or The Justice League of Capitalist Heroes.

Still, if anyone is persuaded by what I'm saying, 
it's probably too late to change the title, so 
such comments will just look snarky, pointless 
and bad-spirited. But for a hint of where I'm 
coming from, consider these quotes from David 
Langford's witty sf-insiderly monthly sf fanzine 
ANSIBLE, where he regularly displays almost 
without comment HOW OTHERS SEE US; some typical examples:

`Sci-fi fans are strange animals. Their natural habitat is their parents'
basement and their traditional pastime is watching their favourite shows
on DVD. But on December 1 all this changed. Now we can watch our
favourite shows on Foxtel too. That's right, my pasty-faced friends _[...
etc, etc, "sci-fi geek", etc ...]_ So grab your Klingon costume, put up
an "I believe" poster in your parents' basement and veg out. The truth
is out there.' (Alice Clarke, _The Age_, 7 December)

Patrick Ness hopes that Tricia Sullivan will yet rise
from the gutter: `How frustrating to be a great writer who happens to
work in sci-fi. For every Jeff Noon or Neal Stephenson who breaks out to
wider arenas, there's a Tricia Sullivan or a Jeff Vandermeer stuck on the
shelves in that bit of the bookstore where most of you never wander.
Hearteningly, Sullivan may be nearing escape velocity, and about time,
too.' (_Guardian_, 20 Jan) Ness's review concludes: `Be brave. Step
into the sci-fi section. You can wear a floppy hat.'

Film director Paul Verhoeven bewails his exile to
the ghetto as a side-effect of the critically execrated _Showgirls_
(1996): `After that they would only let me direct science fiction, not
normal films ...' (_Guardian_ interview, 12 January)

Wendy Smith on a new Jonathan Raban novel set in
2010: `Yet _Surveillance_ is not an exercise in dystopian fiction -- or
at least the kind that sends stick figures wandering through a post-
apocalypse landscape.' (_Washington Post_, 1 March)

At least sf isn't as bad as fantasy, muses Caitlin
Moran of _The Times_ while investigating _World of Warcraft_: `By and
large, my theory runs, people who are into goblins and wizards are people
within the autistic spectrum of behaviour, for whom the utopian sexual
and racial equality offered by, say, sci-fi, is alarming. All those black
chicks in Lycra jumpsuits philosophising about the fallible nature of
humanity, and able to vote? Brrrr!' (_Times_, 26 March)

JOYCE CAROL OATES makes the traditional discovery that sf is OK if only
it's written by _the right kind of people_: `Long the province of genre
entertainments -- science fiction, dystopian fantasy, post-apocalyptic
movies -- the future has been boldly explored in recent years by such
writers as P.D. James ("The Children of Men"), John Updike ("Toward the
End of Time"), Margaret Atwood ("The Handmaid's Tale," "Oryx and Crake"),
Doris Lessing ("Mara and Dann"), and Cormac McCarthy ("The Road"). Now
comes a grim prophetic fable by the much admired British writer Jim Crace
... (_New Yorker_ review, 30 April)

Interview with Geek Comedy Tour 3000, `a seven-member stand-up
troupe that works conventions dedicated to anime, sci-fi, video games,
and other nerdy avocations. [...] The troupe's members cite a few
downsides to working conventions: overenthusiastic fans, bad homoerotic
anime, and hygiene-impaired attendees. "That's one of the hazards of
doing geek comedy," says member Jake Young. "A lot of B.O."' (Josh
Eiserike, _Washington City Paper_, 27 April)

...Starting to get the picture? The best that The 
Order of Cosmic Engineers might hope for, I suspect. is this sample:

PHILIP REEVE was asked his reaction to the horror of _Mortal Engines_
being `put in the sci fi section. How do you feel about the label, do you
think it's a derogatory term?' His reply: `Well, for a long time I
avoided it, but I've started to embrace it because I'm quite proud to be
considered a sci fi author as it's so unfashionable. It's strange that
people worry about boys not reading, even though the one genre that boys
are likely to be interested in is dismissed as garbage, often by the same
people. I think it's time to stand out and be counted. I also think sci
fi should be aware of its own absurdity.' (_Literary Review_, April)

Damien Broderick



From msd001 at gmail.com  Mon Jan  5 18:50:39 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 13:50:39 -0500
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name? (was: YES! to
	Transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090105084447.023fcb90@satx.rr.com>
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901041425g1d5e6221wd3b45e97b3812c06@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104164532.02552408@satx.rr.com>
	<49614F2F.5060309@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30901050310i434e951ck847e05ad714fcab5@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090105084447.023fcb90@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240901051050m74e3bd7yafd60feb3e607af4@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:38 AM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> PHILIP REEVE was asked his reaction to the horror of _Mortal Engines_
> being `put in the sci fi section. How do you feel about the label, do you
> think it's a derogatory term?' His reply: `Well, for a long time I
> avoided it, but I've started to embrace it because I'm quite proud to be
> considered a sci fi author as it's so unfashionable. It's strange that
> people worry about boys not reading, even though the one genre that boys
> are likely to be interested in is dismissed as garbage, often by the same
> people. I think it's time to stand out and be counted. I also think sci
> fi should be aware of its own absurdity.' (_Literary Review_, April)

Has anyone else noticed that the "Sci Fi" channel seems to have lost
focus?  I thought it was a stretch to put "Ghost Hunters" on SciFi,
but insanely high ratings apparently whet executive appetite for more
off-mission content.  Now they have fear-based 'reality' shows
(completely sadomasochistic contrivances) and other nonsense.  The
over-hyped "next to last" episode of SG:Atlantis was essentially
CSI:LasVegas - I was so disappointed that I couldn't be bothered to
watch Sanctuary which followed it.  Maybe Sanctuary is a good show,
but it seems more like Fantasy chasing werewolves and vampires than
should be on SciFi.

Maybe there is too much real technology confusing people right now,
they can't handle it - so they're escaping into fantasy and other
made-up 'reality' shows?


From eschatoon at gmail.com  Mon Jan  5 19:14:55 2009
From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 20:14:55 +0100
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name? (was: YES! to
	Transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090105084447.023fcb90@satx.rr.com>
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901041425g1d5e6221wd3b45e97b3812c06@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104164532.02552408@satx.rr.com>
	<49614F2F.5060309@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30901050310i434e951ck847e05ad714fcab5@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090105084447.023fcb90@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90901051114h793bc4b1o10d02bbfddaf21de@mail.gmail.com>

Good point Damien. I would reword "rational equivalent to a religion"
as "rational worldview also open to artistic and spiritual
sensibilities, _including_ god-free equivalents to the hope and
meaning provided by religions for those who need them".

I construct "Order of Cosmic Engineers" as:
Cosmic = we are interested in cosmic visions, and have long term cosmic goals
Engineers = we want to see visions and achieve goals through science
and engineering
Order =  a frank appeal to the inner eight-year old or WoW player

I think the current name is fine, but just to brainstorm, what
alternative names would you suggest?

G.

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 4:38 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> So is "The Order of Cosmic Engineers" a private, insiderly merriment, a
> piss-take as Aussies would put it? Or an attempt to offset what some see as
> a drift toward prim, watering-down normalization by the World Transhumanist
> Association? Or, indeed, a frank appeal to the inner eight-year old or WoW
> player, a PR feature not a bug?
>
> Since the group's intention appears to be genuinely and indeed cosmically
> serious--an attempt to build a sort of god-free and rational equivalent to a
> religion (as the Prospectus makes clear)--I suggest it's worth thinking this
> through as carefully as possible.
-- 
Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
aka Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco


From benboc at lineone.net  Mon Jan  5 19:43:18 2009
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 19:43:18 +0000
Subject: [ExI] cliques
In-Reply-To: <mailman.182.1231102130.96.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.182.1231102130.96.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <496262D6.1090304@lineone.net>

Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> protested:

 >At 07:01 PM 1/3/2009 -0800, Kevin wrote:

 > >Eh, I meant cliques, as you've sarcastically pointed out  :)

 >Heavens to Betsy, not sarcasm--whimsy. Punnish frivolity (of a rather
 >labored kind no doubt).

I'm surprised (about the spelling).

I noticed the mistake, but assumed it was just another example of 
'American'.

Why is Clique any different to Cheque, Tyre, Colour, Haem, Sulphur, 
Foetus, Oestrogen, etc., etc., etc.?

Is this just a word that slipped past Webster's relentless dumbing-down 
of the language?  (which i always thought was ironic, because you just 
swap spelling for context, in many cases (e.g. Tire, Check, and - i 
thought - Click)).

And Damien, be very careful about proposals to punnish frivolity.  They 
just might backfire on you.

Ben Zaiboc



From sparge at gmail.com  Mon Jan  5 20:52:04 2009
From: sparge at gmail.com (Spargemeister)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 15:52:04 -0500
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name? (was: YES! to
	Transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90901051114h793bc4b1o10d02bbfddaf21de@mail.gmail.com>
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901041425g1d5e6221wd3b45e97b3812c06@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104164532.02552408@satx.rr.com>
	<49614F2F.5060309@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30901050310i434e951ck847e05ad714fcab5@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090105084447.023fcb90@satx.rr.com>
	<1fa8c3b90901051114h793bc4b1o10d02bbfddaf21de@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d0901051252x16aeab1dr560cc92167766446@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 2:14 PM, Eschatoon Magic <eschatoon at gmail.com> wrote:
> Good point Damien. I would reword "rational equivalent to a religion"
> as "rational worldview also open to artistic and spiritual
> sensibilities, _including_ god-free equivalents to the hope and
> meaning provided by religions for those who need them".
>
> I construct "Order of Cosmic Engineers" as:
> Cosmic = we are interested in cosmic visions, and have long term cosmic goals
> Engineers = we want to see visions and achieve goals through science
> and engineering
> Order =  a frank appeal to the inner eight-year old or WoW player

I thought it was based on:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Engineer

Which I've never heard anyone criticize as juvenile-sounding.

-Dave


From natasha at natasha.cc  Mon Jan  5 21:21:02 2009
From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 16:21:02 -0500
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name? (was: YES!
	to	Transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d0901051252x16aeab1dr560cc92167766446@mail.gmail.com>
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901041425g1d5e6221wd3b45e97b3812c06@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104164532.02552408@satx.rr.com>
	<49614F2F.5060309@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30901050310i434e951ck847e05ad714fcab5@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090105084447.023fcb90@satx.rr.com>
	<1fa8c3b90901051114h793bc4b1o10d02bbfddaf21de@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffd22f9d0901051252x16aeab1dr560cc92167766446@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20090105162102.3pzc7o79xc0gks8o@webmail.natasha.cc>

Quoting Spargemeister <sparge at gmail.com>:
> I thought it was based on:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Engineer

Gives new visuals to Lord of the ring. :-)







From thespike at satx.rr.com  Mon Jan  5 21:45:30 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 15:45:30 -0600
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name? (was: YES! to
 Transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d0901051252x16aeab1dr560cc92167766446@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901041425g1d5e6221wd3b45e97b3812c06@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104164532.02552408@satx.rr.com>
	<49614F2F.5060309@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30901050310i434e951ck847e05ad714fcab5@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090105084447.023fcb90@satx.rr.com>
	<1fa8c3b90901051114h793bc4b1o10d02bbfddaf21de@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffd22f9d0901051252x16aeab1dr560cc92167766446@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090105154116.022b2518@satx.rr.com>

At 03:52 PM 1/5/2009 -0500, Dave wrote:

>I thought it was based on:
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Engineer
>
>Which I've never heard anyone criticize as juvenile-sounding.

A wiki subheading leads to the rather good:

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

         OBLIGATION OF AN ENGINEER

I am an Engineer, in my profession I take deep pride. To it I owe 
solemn obligations.

Since the Stone Age, human progress has been spurred by the 
engineering genius. Engineers have made usable Nature's vast 
resources of material and energy for Humanity's [Mankind's] benefit. 
Engineers have vitalized and turned to practical use the principles 
of science and the means of technology. Were it not for this heritage 
of accumulated experience, my efforts would be feeble.

As an Engineer, I pledge to practice integrity and fair dealing, 
tolerance and respect, and to uphold devotion to the standards and 
the dignity of my profession, conscious always that my skill carries 
with it the obligation to serve humanity by making the best use of 
Earth's precious wealth.

As an Engineer[, in humility and with the need for Divine guidance,] 
I shall participate in none but honest enterprises. When needed, my 
skill and knowledge shall be given without reservation for the public 
good. In the performance of duty and in fidelity to my profession, I 
shall give the utmost.

Note: Brackets indicate the original wording of the Obligation. 
Either wording is acceptable, but new certificates have the newer wording.

===========

The distinction seems pretty clear, which is why it's not juvenile. 
These folks really *are* engineers, they don't just play one in World 
of Bashing Imaginary Stuff. Not that there's anything wrong with 
bashing imaginary stuff, or even bashing it out as I've been known to do.

Damien Broderick







From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Jan  5 21:48:41 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:48:41 -0500
Subject: [ExI] YES! to Transhumanism.
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <C4A134984B424596A8F29BEE629F2A9B@MyComputer>

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

> Is it only me, or does "Order of Cosmic Engineers" sound like something
> 8-10 year old boys would be avid to join by clipping the coupon on the
> back of their Kellogg's packet? (Free plastic raygun with every 20 packet
> tops!)

Yes, lets have something a little more dignified, like "Captain Midnight's
Radio Rangers".

By the way I seem to recall reading a book as a kid called "Cosmic
 Engineers". Among many other wonderful things it had a woman who had been
cytogenetically frozen for 10,000 years, but it turned out her mind kept
working during all that time. All she could do was think, so when they
thawed her out after thinking about stuff for 10,000 years she became the
world's greatest mathematician. At least I think it was that book, but maybe
it was some other pulp I was reading at the time.

 John K Clark






From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Jan  5 22:36:37 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 17:36:37 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Instantaneous?
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
	<C4A134984B424596A8F29BEE629F2A9B@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <5D073E0697B4456F8FFC6B710734BF95@MyComputer>

In the current issue of the journal Science an experimental measurement of
the time it takes for an electron to tunnel through a barrier was made.
Theory predicted it should take somewhere between 500 and 600 attoseconds
depending on the breaks. An attosecond is a billionth of billionth of a
second; an attosecond is to a regular second as a second is to the age of
the universe.

The odd thing is that when an experimental measurement was actually made it
was found that the time for that electron to tunnel through that barrier was
less than 12 attoseconds, how much less nobody knows as that is the limit of
the experiment's accuracy.

I don't know quite what to make of that and I find I'm not alone in my
puzzlement. It's weird.

 John K Clark




From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com  Mon Jan  5 22:26:11 2009
From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 14:26:11 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name? (was: YES! to
	Transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090105154116.022b2518@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <796383.54557.qm@web56501.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

Damien said: 

"The distinction seems pretty clear, which is why it's not juvenile. These folks really *are* engineers, they don't just play one in World of Bashing Imaginary Stuff."

Firstly, I have no intention of joining any Order, cosmic or otherwise. 

That said, I can definitely concur that actual engineering is absolutely nothing like imaginary engineering. 

In my Real Job (which is quite frequently difficult, time-consuming, and paced in a manner that would probably be described as "agonizingly slow" by many) as an electrical engineer, I run up against all kinds of real-world complications that must be dealt with before any nifty idea can actually be implemented. Stuff gets built, to be sure, but it doesn't get built as a function of anyone's hand-waving or wishing (though I'm sure managers would love it if that were the case), and it always takes longer and involves more annoyances than you would think. 

And no, this isn't because real engineers suck at what they do (or because real engineering isn't fun -- it can be, but it's generally not instant-gratification fun) -- it's because engineering that actually works, let alone works well, can actually be difficult for reasons that can't be resolved simply by wanting something really really badly and thinking it would be really really cool if you could build it. 

On the other hand, my level 55 undead mage engineer is able to build mechanical chickens via literal (if digital) hand-waving, in seconds flat, on the mere whim of her human controller (i.e., me). In that imaginary universe, everything comes out neat and as-intended, with no approvals to obtain, no forms to get signed, no committees to consult, no time charging numbers to worry about -- not to mention the fact that you get some of your raw engineering materials by beating up your enemies and looting their bodies. Is it fun? Absolutely. Is it anything like actual engineering? Not in a gazillion years.

- Anne


      


From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Jan  5 23:20:17 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 23:20:17 +0000
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name? (was: YES! to
	Transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <796383.54557.qm@web56501.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090105154116.022b2518@satx.rr.com>
	<796383.54557.qm@web56501.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0901051520n4600fb41j17b7485c99cde64a@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Anne Corwin wrote:
> That said, I can definitely concur that actual engineering is absolutely nothing like imaginary
> engineering.
>
> On the other hand, my level 55 undead mage engineer is able to build mechanical chickens
> via literal (if digital) hand-waving, in seconds flat, on the mere whim of her human controller
> (i.e., me). In that imaginary universe, everything comes out neat and as-intended, with no
> approvals to obtain, no forms to get signed, no committees to consult, no time charging
> numbers to worry about -- not to mention the fact that you get some of your raw engineering
> materials by beating up your enemies and looting their bodies.
> Is it fun? Absolutely. Is it anything like actual engineering? Not in a gazillion years.
>


Always remember, Dilbert is a "real" engineer.


BillK


From xuenay at gmail.com  Mon Jan  5 23:37:06 2009
From: xuenay at gmail.com (Kaj Sotala)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 01:37:06 +0200
Subject: [ExI] cliques
In-Reply-To: <496262D6.1090304@lineone.net>
References: <mailman.182.1231102130.96.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<496262D6.1090304@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <6a13bb8f0901051537u5b0af2e7p39c9b670dc6c9663@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 9:43 PM, ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:
> And Damien, be very careful about proposals to punnish frivolity.  They just
> might backfire on you.

There are incorrigible punsters on this list. Don't incorrige them.


From santostasigio at yahoo.com  Tue Jan  6 00:11:30 2009
From: santostasigio at yahoo.com (giovanni santost)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 16:11:30 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Instantaneous?
In-Reply-To: <5D073E0697B4456F8FFC6B710734BF95@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <305241.36718.qm@web31307.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

That is extremely interesting....If that is confirmed it would be the first violation of QM ever observed.


--- On Mon, 1/5/09, John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

From: John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>
Subject: [ExI] Instantaneous?
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Date: Monday, January 5, 2009, 4:36 PM

In the current issue of the journal Science an experimental measurement of
the time it takes for an electron to tunnel through a barrier was made.
Theory predicted it should take somewhere between 500 and 600 attoseconds
depending on the breaks. An attosecond is a billionth of billionth of a
second; an attosecond is to a regular second as a second is to the age of
the universe.

The odd thing is that when an experimental measurement was actually made it
was found that the time for that electron to tunnel through that barrier was
less than 12 attoseconds, how much less nobody knows as that is the limit of
the experiment's accuracy.

I don't know quite what to make of that and I find I'm not alone in my
puzzlement. It's weird.

John K Clark


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



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090105/45f7dd45/attachment.html>

From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Tue Jan  6 02:53:41 2009
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 19:53:41 -0700
Subject: [ExI] cliques
In-Reply-To: <6a13bb8f0901051537u5b0af2e7p39c9b670dc6c9663@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.182.1231102130.96.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<496262D6.1090304@lineone.net>
	<6a13bb8f0901051537u5b0af2e7p39c9b670dc6c9663@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2d6187670901051853o7bde6e41gace964dabaf8d589@mail.gmail.com>

Anyone here remember the "Punday" ritual at Callahan's Cross-time Saloon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callahan%27s_Crosstime_Saloon

http://callahans.50megs.com/public/traditions.html
 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callahan%27s_Crosstime_Saloon>
http://spiderrobinson.com/index2.html

http://www.callahans.org/

http://www.spiderrobinson.com/podcast.html

"Shared pain is lessened,
Shared joy is increased.
Thus we refute entropy."

I think Damien and others here would fit right in with the characters found
in this great series by Spider Robinson.

John  : )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090105/7292ae16/attachment.html>

From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Tue Jan  6 03:22:23 2009
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 20:22:23 -0700
Subject: [ExI] reconsidering the Orion's Arm timeline...
Message-ID: <2d6187670901051922h30a245bei3de91cc7dc09c279@mail.gmail.com>

I think the timeline of OA is in some ways far too dragged out and that it
could be condensed down to two or even just one millennia.  I find the
description of general progress and tech advancement within the c. 2100 -
2400 c.e. "interplanetary era" to be ridiculously slow. And I find it funny
that the "nanotech era" of the "backyarders" comes roughly a dang half
millennia from now! LOL

http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html

http://www.orionsarm.com/timeline.html

Has anyone ever tried to create an alternate OA timeline along the lines of
what I envision?

John Grigg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090105/43863d4e/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Jan  6 05:44:14 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:44:14 -0800
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name? (was: YES!
	to	Transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0901051520n4600fb41j17b7485c99cde64a@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090105154116.022b2518@satx.rr.com>
	<796383.54557.qm@web56501.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<ee50357e0901051520n4600fb41j17b7485c99cde64a@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4962EFAE.2010404@mac.com>

BillK wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:26 PM, Anne Corwin wrote:
>> That said, I can definitely concur that actual engineering is absolutely nothing like imaginary
>> engineering.
>>
>> On the other hand, my level 55 undead mage engineer is able to build mechanical chickens
>> via literal (if digital) hand-waving, in seconds flat, on the mere whim of her human controller
>> (i.e., me). In that imaginary universe, everything comes out neat and as-intended, with no
>> approvals to obtain, no forms to get signed, no committees to consult, no time charging
>> numbers to worry about -- not to mention the fact that you get some of your raw engineering
>> materials by beating up your enemies and looting their bodies.
>> Is it fun? Absolutely. Is it anything like actual engineering? Not in a gazillion years.
>>
>

In startups it is generally a lot more fun (and scary as hell).

> 
> Always remember, Dilbert is a "real" engineer.

Delightful!  All too true.


- samantha


From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Jan  6 05:47:56 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:47:56 -0800
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090105154116.022b2518@satx.rr.com>
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901041425g1d5e6221wd3b45e97b3812c06@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104164532.02552408@satx.rr.com>
	<49614F2F.5060309@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30901050310i434e951ck847e05ad714fcab5@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090105084447.023fcb90@satx.rr.com>
	<1fa8c3b90901051114h793bc4b1o10d02bbfddaf21de@mail.gmail.com>
	<ffd22f9d0901051252x16aeab1dr560cc92167766446@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090105154116.022b2518@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <4962F08C.90106@mac.com>

Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 03:52 PM 1/5/2009 -0500, Dave wrote:
> 
>> I thought it was based on:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_the_Engineer
>>
>> Which I've never heard anyone criticize as juvenile-sounding.
> 
> A wiki subheading leads to the rather good:
> 
> ===================
> 
>         OBLIGATION OF AN ENGINEER
> 
> I am an Engineer, in my profession I take deep pride. To it I owe solemn 
> obligations.
> 
> Since the Stone Age, human progress has been spurred by the engineering 
> genius. Engineers have made usable Nature's vast resources of material 
> and energy for Humanity's [Mankind's] benefit. Engineers have vitalized 
> and turned to practical use the principles of science and the means of 
> technology. Were it not for this heritage of accumulated experience, my 
> efforts would be feeble.
> 
> As an Engineer, I pledge to practice integrity and fair dealing, 
> tolerance and respect, and to uphold devotion to the standards and the 
> dignity of my profession, conscious always that my skill carries with it 
> the obligation to serve humanity by making the best use of Earth's 
> precious wealth.
> 
> As an Engineer[, in humility and with the need for Divine guidance,] I 
> shall participate in none but honest enterprises. When needed, my skill 
> and knowledge shall be given without reservation for the public good. In 
> the performance of duty and in fidelity to my profession, I shall give 
> the utmost.
> 
> Note: Brackets indicate the original wording of the Obligation. Either 
> wording is acceptable, but new certificates have the newer wording.
> 
> ===========
> 

Yes.  It is no accident BTW that many OCE members are real world 
engineers.

- samantha


From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Jan  6 05:53:48 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 21:53:48 -0800
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name?
In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90901051114h793bc4b1o10d02bbfddaf21de@mail.gmail.com>
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901041425g1d5e6221wd3b45e97b3812c06@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104164532.02552408@satx.rr.com>
	<49614F2F.5060309@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30901050310i434e951ck847e05ad714fcab5@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090105084447.023fcb90@satx.rr.com>
	<1fa8c3b90901051114h793bc4b1o10d02bbfddaf21de@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4962F1EC.80307@mac.com>

Eschatoon Magic wrote:
> Good point Damien. I would reword "rational equivalent to a religion"
> as "rational worldview also open to artistic and spiritual
> sensibilities, _including_ god-free equivalents to the hope and
> meaning provided by religions for those who need them".

Whether we are at peace with it or not, religion and spiritual speaks to 
pretty deep aspects of being human including for many their highest 
aspirations and ideals.  In this sense a strong movement rational yet 
touching on the best and most powerful aspects for many usually only 
reached by religion, could be a good thing.

> 
> I construct "Order of Cosmic Engineers" as:
> Cosmic = we are interested in cosmic visions, and have long term cosmic goals
> Engineers = we want to see visions and achieve goals through science
> and engineering
> Order =  a frank appeal to the inner eight-year old or WoW player

I don't take Order frivolously or apologize for it.  I think it is time 
for that level of dedication to high purpose, ideals and goals.  It may 
not be hip or cool but I think it has a power to it that shouldn't be 
cavalierly tossed aside.


-samantha


From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Jan  6 06:06:00 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Mon, 05 Jan 2009 22:06:00 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
In-Reply-To: <49621160.3050707@mindspring.com>
References: <923751.72052.qm@web31306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<495EA5E9.8060609@mac.com> <49621160.3050707@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <4962F4C8.7040201@mac.com>

An update is in order.  The labor was a bit longer and harder than Amara 
had hoped for.  But she gave birth to a beautiful daughter, Vija 
(vee-ya).  Attached is a low-res cellphone pic and some daat Amara took 
from the hospital.  She hopes to get around to more of an announcement 
and sharing soon.

- samantha



David C. Harris wrote:
> samantha wrote:
>>
>> I just saw this facebook status update from her sister Nina.
>>
>> "Nina is the aunt of a healthy baby girl today!"
>>
>> I haven't heard any other detail yet but I expect mother and daughter 
>> are resting.
>>
>> - samantha
> I'd been thinking a lot about Amara and "Myrtle" today.  I'd been 
> struggling to reach the frontiers of  home computing with a quad 
> processor 8 Gigabyte RAM computer networked to specialized lesser 
> computers. The usual unexpected hurdles gave me time to wonder "gee, 
> Amara must be going into labor soon.  I wonder how she's doing...".  
> Today I finally got my Linux computer to give "birth" to a virtualized 
> XP desktop, and I started thinking of the things that would no longer 
> have to be dual booted.  One of them was Second Life.  And that lead to 
> reading the transcript(s) of Amara's baby shower and experiences and 
> thoughts, and the footnotes to her talk.  And that lead me to the recent 
> ExI messages and the wonderful news that she has succeeded in having a 
> healthy baby girl.
> 
> Congratulations, Amara!  In pursuing a deep desire you have also 
> educated a lot of people, including me, and touched our hearts.  Thank  
> you, for sharing you and your precious little girl.  May you both (and 
> we) live long and prosper!
> 
>   -- David Harris, Palo Alto
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Picture 2.png
Type: image/png
Size: 101145 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090105/df041dd5/attachment.png>

From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com  Tue Jan  6 06:38:54 2009
From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 22:38:54 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
In-Reply-To: <4962F4C8.7040201@mac.com>
References: <923751.72052.qm@web31306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<495EA5E9.8060609@mac.com> <49621160.3050707@mindspring.com>
	<4962F4C8.7040201@mac.com>
Message-ID: <9b9887c80901052238u65384f3ch60a800286f805584@mail.gmail.com>

blessings on the new soul with secular authority and a circle of joy.
 blessings,  ilsa

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 10:06 PM, samantha <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> An update is in order.  The labor was a bit longer and harder than Amara
> had hoped for.  But she gave birth to a beautiful daughter, Vija (vee-ya).
>  Attached is a low-res cellphone pic and some daat Amara took from the
> hospital.  She hopes to get around to more of an announcement and sharing
> soon.
>
> - samantha
>
>
>
>
> David C. Harris wrote:
>
>> samantha wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I just saw this facebook status update from her sister Nina.
>>>
>>> "Nina is the aunt of a healthy baby girl today!"
>>>
>>> I haven't heard any other detail yet but I expect mother and daughter are
>>> resting.
>>>
>>> - samantha
>>>
>> I'd been thinking a lot about Amara and "Myrtle" today.  I'd been
>> struggling to reach the frontiers of  home computing with a quad processor 8
>> Gigabyte RAM computer networked to specialized lesser computers. The usual
>> unexpected hurdles gave me time to wonder "gee, Amara must be going into
>> labor soon.  I wonder how she's doing...".  Today I finally got my Linux
>> computer to give "birth" to a virtualized XP desktop, and I started thinking
>> of the things that would no longer have to be dual booted.  One of them was
>> Second Life.  And that lead to reading the transcript(s) of Amara's baby
>> shower and experiences and thoughts, and the footnotes to her talk.  And
>> that lead me to the recent ExI messages and the wonderful news that she has
>> succeeded in having a healthy baby girl.
>>
>> Congratulations, Amara!  In pursuing a deep desire you have also educated
>> a lot of people, including me, and touched our hearts.  Thank  you, for
>> sharing you and your precious little girl.  May you both (and we) live long
>> and prosper!
>>
>>  -- David Harris, Palo Alto
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>


-- 
Ilsa Bartlett
Institute for Rewiring the System
2951 Derby Street #139
Berkeley, CA 94705
www.hotlux.com/angel.htm
www.grassroutestravel.com

"Don't ever get so big or important that you can not hear and listen to
every other person."
-John Coltrane
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090105/d08b1381/attachment.html>

From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Tue Jan  6 06:41:06 2009
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 23:41:06 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
In-Reply-To: <4962F4C8.7040201@mac.com>
References: <923751.72052.qm@web31306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<495EA5E9.8060609@mac.com> <49621160.3050707@mindspring.com>
	<4962F4C8.7040201@mac.com>
Message-ID: <2d6187670901052241i4783109cw748ea5f9de5dff33@mail.gmail.com>

I don't care how many times it happens, every birth is a miracle in it's own
way.  But considering all Amara went through to bring Vija into the world, I
would say this is an event that's truly amazing and wonderful.

My very best wishes to the mother and daughter!

John  : )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090105/bef76ca0/attachment.html>

From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Tue Jan  6 06:46:38 2009
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Mon, 5 Jan 2009 22:46:38 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
In-Reply-To: <4962F4C8.7040201@mac.com>
References: <923751.72052.qm@web31306.mail.mud.yahoo.com><495EA5E9.8060609@mac.com>
	<49621160.3050707@mindspring.com> <4962F4C8.7040201@mac.com>
Message-ID: <D852AF4035874204AFCA47571CB0850C@GinaSony>

What a BEAUTIFUL baby! 


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: samantha 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 10:06 PM
  Subject: Re: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!


  An update is in order.  The labor was a bit longer and harder than Amara 
  had hoped for.  But she gave birth to a beautiful daughter, Vija 
  (vee-ya).  Attached is a low-res cellphone pic and some daat Amara took 
  from the hospital.  She hopes to get around to more of an announcement 
  and sharing soon.

  - samantha



  David C. Harris wrote:
  > samantha wrote:
  >>
  >> I just saw this facebook status update from her sister Nina.
  >>
  >> "Nina is the aunt of a healthy baby girl today!"
  >>
  >> I haven't heard any other detail yet but I expect mother and daughter 
  >> are resting.
  >>
  >> - samantha
  > I'd been thinking a lot about Amara and "Myrtle" today.  I'd been 
  > struggling to reach the frontiers of  home computing with a quad 
  > processor 8 Gigabyte RAM computer networked to specialized lesser 
  > computers. The usual unexpected hurdles gave me time to wonder "gee, 
  > Amara must be going into labor soon.  I wonder how she's doing...".  
  > Today I finally got my Linux computer to give "birth" to a virtualized 
  > XP desktop, and I started thinking of the things that would no longer 
  > have to be dual booted.  One of them was Second Life.  And that lead to 
  > reading the transcript(s) of Amara's baby shower and experiences and 
  > thoughts, and the footnotes to her talk.  And that lead me to the recent 
  > ExI messages and the wonderful news that she has succeeded in having a 
  > healthy baby girl.
  > 
  > Congratulations, Amara!  In pursuing a deep desire you have also 
  > educated a lot of people, including me, and touched our hearts.  Thank  
  > you, for sharing you and your precious little girl.  May you both (and 
  > we) live long and prosper!
  > 
  >   -- David Harris, Palo Alto
  > _______________________________________________
  > extropy-chat mailing list
  > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat




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






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


  _______________________________________________
  extropy-chat mailing list
  extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090105/9c7c88cc/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Jan  6 08:05:04 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 03:05:04 -0500
Subject: [ExI] No more Andromeda envy
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com><C4A134984B424596A8F29BEE629F2A9B@MyComputer>
	<5D073E0697B4456F8FFC6B710734BF95@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <D54F49286EE04896B64114C4F3CCC9B3@MyComputer>

So that punk the Andromeda galaxy thought he be the biggest in the Local
Group, but he don't know shit, it turn out our stuff be just as big as his!

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/science/space/06galaxy.html?_r=1&ref=science

 John K Clark




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jan  6 08:15:10 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 02:15:10 -0600
Subject: [ExI] No more Andromeda envy
In-Reply-To: <D54F49286EE04896B64114C4F3CCC9B3@MyComputer>
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
	<C4A134984B424596A8F29BEE629F2A9B@MyComputer>
	<5D073E0697B4456F8FFC6B710734BF95@MyComputer>
	<D54F49286EE04896B64114C4F3CCC9B3@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090106021305.0274b180@satx.rr.com>

At 03:05 AM 1/6/2009 -0500, John Clarke wrote:

>So that punk the Andromeda galaxy thought he be the biggest

Yo, dude, Andromeda be a lady beitch.



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Jan  6 09:34:27 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 04:34:27 -0500
Subject: [ExI] No more Andromeda envy
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com><C4A134984B424596A8F29BEE629F2A9B@MyComputer><5D073E0697B4456F8FFC6B710734BF95@MyComputer><D54F49286EE04896B64114C4F3CCC9B3@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090106021305.0274b180@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <AE7BE613BE514DC29C761822A04FDC45@MyComputer>

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

> John Clarke wrote:

No, John Clark (no e) wrote. And all those rumors about me being Arthur C's
illegitimate son are entirely unfounded.

For once I get to catch you in a spelling error!

 John K Clark (unfortunately no e)






From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Tue Jan  6 11:48:42 2009
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 06:48:42 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ExI] Amara is giving birth!
In-Reply-To: <4962F4C8.7040201@mac.com>
References: <923751.72052.qm@web31306.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<495EA5E9.8060609@mac.com> <49621160.3050707@mindspring.com>
	<4962F4C8.7040201@mac.com>
Message-ID: <35521.12.77.168.240.1231242522.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>

Welcome, Vija!  Congratulations, Amara. That's a lovely baby. :)

Regards,
MB


> An update is in order.  The labor was a bit longer and harder than Amara
> had hoped for.  But she gave birth to a beautiful daughter, Vija
> (vee-ya).  Attached is a low-res cellphone pic and some daat Amara took
> from the hospital.  She hopes to get around to more of an announcement
> and sharing soon.
>
> - samantha
>
>



From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk  Tue Jan  6 11:32:00 2009
From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:32:00 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name?
In-Reply-To: <mailman.190.1231210435.96.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <641025.90391.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

If I'm not mistaken, the Order of Cosmic Engineers held their launch event in Warcraft. If they're an organisation with 100% warcrack-lovers as their founders, it is hardly surprising they have a name designed to appeal to WoW players.

 The whole image I get of the organisation is of people who love virtual worlds. Therefore, the organisation does not need any of the trappings that might actually get people wanting to attend a meeting in the flesh, unlike the UK Transhumanist Association which enjoys discussing which pubs and coffee bars near the meeting venue are good, and how to webcast the meetings as people who couldn't make it would love to see and hear what went on. How an organisation communicates, meets and organises shape how it advertises itself and communicates with the wider world.

I'll have to leave musing on the sociology and anthropology of transhumanist groups for another time.

Tom


      


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Jan  6 13:05:56 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 14:05:56 +0100
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name? (was: YES! to
	Transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <796383.54557.qm@web56501.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090105154116.022b2518@satx.rr.com>
	<796383.54557.qm@web56501.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20901060505x25ac6b50v66a3dab71ebfb650@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:26 PM, Anne Corwin <sparkle_robot at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> That said, I can definitely concur that actual engineering is absolutely nothing like imaginary engineering.

Still, engineering may have a broader meaning, as in social
engineering, bio-engineering, reverse-ingeneering, political
engineering, etc.

What I frankly do not like in the term for an org such as OCE is the
suggestion that the latter might be involved in anything other than
*cultural* engineering, and aim as such at the actual engineering of
H+ solutions, which would in my view be a misguided and delusional
ambition, this being the job of corporate R&D depts, of visionary
startups, of State-funded agencies, of community-based specific
projects such as those of the Open Source movement, and of individual
researchers.

Which of course does not mean that the Order should not spread and
foster information, support, promotion, financing, education,
cross-pollination, personal involvements, etc. in this respect.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Tue Jan  6 14:57:11 2009
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 07:57:11 -0700
Subject: [ExI] YES! to Transhumanism.
In-Reply-To: <C4A134984B424596A8F29BEE629F2A9B@MyComputer>
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
	<C4A134984B424596A8F29BEE629F2A9B@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <d1988d2d0901060657r6eed49a3ga6fd4d069d9b89da@mail.gmail.com>

>From Wikipedia

Cosmic Engineers is a science fiction novel by author Clifford D.
Simak. It was published in 1950 by Gnome Press in an edition of 6,000
copies, of which 1,000 were bound in paperback for an armed forces
edition. The novel was originally serialized in the magazine
Astounding in 1939.

[edit] Plot introduction

The novel concerns a group of earthmen and a girl who are awakened
from suspended animation by aliens with whom they join to prevent the
collision of one universe with another.

******

Keith Henson

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 2:48 PM, John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>
>
>> Is it only me, or does "Order of Cosmic Engineers" sound like something
>> 8-10 year old boys would be avid to join by clipping the coupon on the
>> back of their Kellogg's packet? (Free plastic raygun with every 20 packet
>> tops!)
>
> Yes, lets have something a little more dignified, like "Captain Midnight's
> Radio Rangers".
>
> By the way I seem to recall reading a book as a kid called "Cosmic
> Engineers". Among many other wonderful things it had a woman who had been
> cytogenetically frozen for 10,000 years, but it turned out her mind kept
> working during all that time. All she could do was think, so when they
> thawed her out after thinking about stuff for 10,000 years she became the
> world's greatest mathematician. At least I think it was that book, but maybe
> it was some other pulp I was reading at the time.
>
> John K Clark
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From dagonweb at gmail.com  Tue Jan  6 15:36:55 2009
From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 16:36:55 +0100
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name?
In-Reply-To: <641025.90391.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.190.1231210435.96.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<641025.90391.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <bf3acbfc0901060736n654492dei690de8e2f95dd37d@mail.gmail.com>

I dunno, isn't it kinda imature to project your prejudices and personal
insecurities on other people in this manner? I mean, you are on a
"extropianism forum", which is reason for 1+ billion young women not
to mate with you?

What else haven't you learned in adolescence?

If I'm not mistaken, the Order of Cosmic Engineers held their launch event
> in Warcraft. If they're an organisation with 100% warcrack-lovers as their
> founders, it is hardly surprising they have a name designed to appeal to WoW
> players.
>
>  The whole image I get of the organisation is of people who love virtual
> worlds. Therefore, the organisation does not need any of the trappings that
> might actually get people wanting to attend a meeting in the flesh, unlike
> the UK Transhumanist Association which enjoys discussing which pubs and
> coffee bars near the meeting venue are good, and how to webcast the meetings
> as people who couldn't make it would love to see and hear what went on. How
> an organisation communicates, meets and organises shape how it advertises
> itself and communicates with the wider world.
>
> I'll have to leave musing on the sociology and anthropology of
> transhumanist groups for another time.
>
> Tom
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090106/e04cbec1/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Jan  6 16:06:30 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:06:30 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Instantaneous?
In-Reply-To: <5D073E0697B4456F8FFC6B710734BF95@MyComputer>
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
	<C4A134984B424596A8F29BEE629F2A9B@MyComputer>
	<5D073E0697B4456F8FFC6B710734BF95@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <580930c20901060806h502f9cbbga69979174df5ccb4@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:36 PM, John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:
> In the current issue of the journal Science an experimental measurement of
> the time it takes for an electron to tunnel through a barrier was made.

Any link to web sites discussing the experiment?

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Jan  6 16:30:13 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:30:13 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Instantaneous?
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com><C4A134984B424596A8F29BEE629F2A9B@MyComputer><5D073E0697B4456F8FFC6B710734BF95@MyComputer>
	<580930c20901060806h502f9cbbga69979174df5ccb4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <E99438E6BCBD404388FF3465B51D6B91@MyComputer>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stefano Vaj" <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Instantaneous?


> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:36 PM, John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> In the current issue of the journal Science an experimental measurement 
>> of
>> the time it takes for an electron to tunnel through a barrier was made.
>
> Any link to web sites discussing the experiment?
>
> -- 
> Stefano Vaj
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 




From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Jan  6 16:31:19 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:31:19 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Instantaneous?
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com><C4A134984B424596A8F29BEE629F2A9B@MyComputer><5D073E0697B4456F8FFC6B710734BF95@MyComputer>
	<580930c20901060806h502f9cbbga69979174df5ccb4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <BDD5EBF3CE5D4406A45C4A63AC71EABA@MyComputer>

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081227215828.htm


==========
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Stefano Vaj" <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Tuesday, January 06, 2009 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Instantaneous?


> On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 11:36 PM, John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> In the current issue of the journal Science an experimental measurement 
>> of
>> the time it takes for an electron to tunnel through a barrier was made.
>
> Any link to web sites discussing the experiment?
>
> -- 
> Stefano Vaj
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 




From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Jan  6 16:33:06 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:33:06 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Instantaneous?
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com><C4A134984B424596A8F29BEE629F2A9B@MyComputer>
	<5D073E0697B4456F8FFC6B710734BF95@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <33574FDBCE834BC68A55D678B23CB349@MyComputer>

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081227215828.htm

==================
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John K Clark" <jonkc at bellsouth.net>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Monday, January 05, 2009 5:36 PM
Subject: [ExI] Instantaneous?


> In the current issue of the journal Science an experimental measurement of
> the time it takes for an electron to tunnel through a barrier was made.
> Theory predicted it should take somewhere between 500 and 600 attoseconds
> depending on the breaks. An attosecond is a billionth of billionth of a
> second; an attosecond is to a regular second as a second is to the age of
> the universe.
>
> The odd thing is that when an experimental measurement was actually made 
> it
> was found that the time for that electron to tunnel through that barrier 
> was
> less than 12 attoseconds, how much less nobody knows as that is the limit 
> of
> the experiment's accuracy.
>
> I don't know quite what to make of that and I find I'm not alone in my
> puzzlement. It's weird.
>
> John K Clark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jan  8 16:21:47 2009
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 17:21:47 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Instantaneous?
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com><C4A134984B424596A8F29BEE629F2A9B@MyComputer><5D073E0697B4456F8FFC6B710734BF95@MyComputer>
	<580930c20901060806h502f9cbbga69979174df5ccb4@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <001501c971ad$35150260$4d094797@archimede>

> Any link to web sites discussing the experiment?

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/322/5907/1525
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080720223712.htm


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jan  6 16:38:37 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:38:37 -0600
Subject: [ExI] No more Andromeda envy
In-Reply-To: <AE7BE613BE514DC29C761822A04FDC45@MyComputer>
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com>
	<C4A134984B424596A8F29BEE629F2A9B@MyComputer>
	<5D073E0697B4456F8FFC6B710734BF95@MyComputer>
	<D54F49286EE04896B64114C4F3CCC9B3@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090106021305.0274b180@satx.rr.com>
	<AE7BE613BE514DC29C761822A04FDC45@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090106103124.05b34780@satx.rr.com>

At 04:34 AM 1/6/2009 -0500, JKC wrote:

>>John Clarke wrote:
>
>No, John Clark (no e) wrote. And all those rumors about me being Arthur C's
>illegitimate son are entirely unfounded.

But wait--didn't we just establish it's spelled "John K. Claque"?

No, sorry, that can't be right. Of course it's spelled "Pelagius"--I 
read it in some old book.

Sorry for the goof, pal. I blame it on the mind-numbing effects of 
posting my email at 2.15 in the morning after a harrowing day 
considering a major housing move. Hmm, but I see your reply was sent 
at half past four this morning, an even more deranging hour. I tell 
you, it's as confusing as getting instantaneous messages from Andromeda.

Damien Broderick (almost awake) 



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Tue Jan  6 18:35:21 2009
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 11:35:21 -0700
Subject: [ExI] reconsidering the Orion's Arm timeline...
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670901051922h30a245bei3de91cc7dc09c279@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2d6187670901051922h30a245bei3de91cc7dc09c279@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d1988d2d0901061035vfc2296bn61b8979b05dcfe50@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 8:22 PM, John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the timeline of OA is in some ways far too dragged out and that it
> could be condensed down to two or even just one millennia.  I find the
> description of general progress and tech advancement within the c. 2100 -
> 2400 c.e. "interplanetary era" to be ridiculously slow. And I find it funny
> that the "nanotech era" of the "backyarders" comes roughly a dang half
> millennia from now! LOL
>
> http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html
>
> http://www.orionsarm.com/timeline.html
>
> Has anyone ever tried to create an alternate OA timeline along the lines of
> what I envision?

The future is collapsing into the present.

When AC Clarke wrote Against the Fall of Night he had the construction
of AIs (the Mad Mind, Vanamonde) billions of years into the future.
The reality is that he darn near lived long enough to see them.

The only thing that drags out future timelines is the distances
between stars, assuming there is not some way around the speed of
light.  Also assuming humans level the earth at all, something I kind
of doubt now.

My personal view of the future has changed repeatedly.  It could
change again I suppose.

Right now I don't think there will be any physical state humans left
by the end of this century.

This is my attempt on humans being seduced into cyberspace in a short story.

http://www.terasemjournals.org/GN0202/henson.html

(for those who have not read it already.)

Keith


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jan  6 19:03:54 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 13:03:54 -0600
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name?
In-Reply-To: <641025.90391.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.190.1231210435.96.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<641025.90391.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090106124603.05b72ef0@satx.rr.com>

At 11:32 AM 1/6/2009 +0000, Tom Nowell wrote:

>If I'm not mistaken, the Order of Cosmic Engineers held their launch 
>event in Warcraft. If they're an organisation with 100% 
>warcrack-lovers as their founders, it is hardly surprising they have 
>a name designed to appeal to WoW players.
>
>  The whole image I get of the organisation is of people who love 
> virtual worlds.

On reflection I see that this is clearly correct. Looking at the 
group's name from that perspective, my initial qualms are not just 
groundless but obtuse, completely missing the point. If it's a sort 
of  >H gamers' enclave within established fantasy worlds, it has to 
reflect that milieu (whether out of the sheer delight and playfulness 
of doing so, or as an entrist ploy into virtual gamespace). Still, 
this doesn't really seem consistent with the rather solemn high-toned 
tenor of much of the Prospectus. I dunno. If it's seen as a ludic 
conduit into the mass mind, while World Transhumanism/Humanity-Plus 
or whatever is more for policy wonks in suits and ties, it probably 
wouldn't hurt if it called itself Sergeant Saturn and the Men of 
Tomorrow-- 
<http://homepage3.nifty.com/captainfuture/mag_contents.html>--or 
Captain Wii and her Virtual Rangers.

Damien Broderick




From scerir at libero.it  Thu Jan  8 20:14:44 2009
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 21:14:44 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Instantaneous?
References: <496120A7.20703@mac.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090104160313.024f2d20@satx.rr.com><C4A134984B424596A8F29BEE629F2A9B@MyComputer><5D073E0697B4456F8FFC6B710734BF95@MyComputer><580930c20901060806h502f9cbbga69979174df5ccb4@mail.gmail.com>
	<001501c971ad$35150260$4d094797@archimede>
Message-ID: <00ab01c971cd$bfc59080$3fe41e97@archimede>

and also this one
http://www.ethlife.ethz.ch/archive_articles/081205_keller_tunneling_sch/index_EN



From kanzure at gmail.com  Tue Jan  6 21:29:18 2009
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:29:18 -0600
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name? (was: YES! to
	Transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <580930c20901060505x25ac6b50v66a3dab71ebfb650@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090105154116.022b2518@satx.rr.com>
	<796383.54557.qm@web56501.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<580930c20901060505x25ac6b50v66a3dab71ebfb650@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55ad6af70901061329g2d4011f5td2dec13237bc7e59@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 7:05 AM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> What I frankly do not like in the term for an org such as OCE is the
> suggestion that the latter might be involved in anything other than
> *cultural* engineering, and aim as such at the actual engineering of
> H+ solutions, which would in my view be a misguided and delusional
> ambition, this being the job of corporate R&D depts, of visionary
> startups, of State-funded agencies, of community-based specific
> projects such as those of the Open Source movement, and of individual
> researchers.

You people need to more explicitly state that on your pages. Put
something up on the front page like: "We do not participate in the
actual engineering of H+ solutions, a misguided and delusional
ambition, this being the job of corporate R&D departments, startups,
state-funded agencies, or well-funded researchers, which we generally
happen not to be any of, and disinterested in direct participation in
open source projects of those H+-related solutions". Would save a lot
of people a lot of trouble. You know what, just point them my way
instead, or something.

Whatever happened to the hobbyist machinist, anyway?

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Tue Jan  6 21:40:09 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 22:40:09 +0100
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name? (was: YES! to
	Transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <55ad6af70901061329g2d4011f5td2dec13237bc7e59@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090105154116.022b2518@satx.rr.com>
	<796383.54557.qm@web56501.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<580930c20901060505x25ac6b50v66a3dab71ebfb650@mail.gmail.com>
	<55ad6af70901061329g2d4011f5td2dec13237bc7e59@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20901061340v12b8ac01w286ae599433f6a2e@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:
> You people need to more explicitly state that on your pages. Put
> something up on the front page like: "We do not participate in the
> actual engineering of H+ solutions"

Actually, there are fellow cosmic engineers who not only are
personally involved in such activities, but would like to see the
Order itself directly engaged in its own tech projects.

The fact that this is not the area where to try and leverage the
scarce resources of a non-profit org, which might achieve much more
strategic results focusing instead on advocacy, evangelism and
lobbying in order to have much more massive energies deployed to this
effect, is just my personal position.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Jan  6 21:48:27 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 21:48:27 +0000
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name? (was: YES! to
	Transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <55ad6af70901061329g2d4011f5td2dec13237bc7e59@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090105154116.022b2518@satx.rr.com>
	<796383.54557.qm@web56501.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<580930c20901060505x25ac6b50v66a3dab71ebfb650@mail.gmail.com>
	<55ad6af70901061329g2d4011f5td2dec13237bc7e59@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0901061348r410e2820k9749e529bf1a2e49@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Bryan Bishop  wrote:
<snip>
> Whatever happened to the hobbyist machinist, anyway?
>


They died out between your grandad's generation and your dad's
generation. After car engines became too complex to strip down and
rebuild in a weekend. When things became 'black boxes' with no
serviceable parts inside. 'Tinkerers' have nearly died out.

Think now. When your toaster breaks down what do you do?
You either,
1)  throw it away and buy another,  or,
2) take it round to grandad, who disappears into his shed for an hour
or two, then returns it to you, working perfectly and shining so you
can see your face in it.

But grandad won't be around much longer.


BillK


From kanzure at gmail.com  Tue Jan  6 21:53:12 2009
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 15:53:12 -0600
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name? (was: YES! to
	Transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <580930c20901061340v12b8ac01w286ae599433f6a2e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090105154116.022b2518@satx.rr.com>
	<796383.54557.qm@web56501.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<580930c20901060505x25ac6b50v66a3dab71ebfb650@mail.gmail.com>
	<55ad6af70901061329g2d4011f5td2dec13237bc7e59@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20901061340v12b8ac01w286ae599433f6a2e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55ad6af70901061353v7862237cr9e682d17541643f1@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 3:40 PM, Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:
>> You people need to more explicitly state that on your pages. Put
>> something up on the front page like: "We do not participate in the
>> actual engineering of H+ solutions"
>
> Actually, there are fellow cosmic engineers who not only are
> personally involved in such activities, but would like to see the
> Order itself directly engaged in its own tech projects.

That doesn't seem to be the majoriy opinion, and those who are doing
projects would be doing them anyway regardless of OCE.

> The fact that this is not the area where to try and leverage the
> scarce resources of a non-profit org, which might achieve much more
> strategic results focusing instead on advocacy, evangelism and
> lobbying in order to have much more massive energies deployed to this
> effect, is just my personal position.

Well, yes, I realize that it was your own personal opinion in the
message that I was replying to, but it's also a shared opinion across
more people than just yourself. But also add in my age bias here, so
whatever. Take it with a grain of salt.

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Wed Jan  7 00:49:12 2009
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 17:49:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] reconsidering the Orion's Arm timeline...
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670901051922h30a245bei3de91cc7dc09c279@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2d6187670901051922h30a245bei3de91cc7dc09c279@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d1988d2d0901061649u328bb6f3vd691c5e8e3061579@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 5, 2009 at 8:22 PM, John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the timeline of OA is in some ways far too dragged out and that it
> could be condensed down to two or even just one millennia.  I find the
> description of general progress and tech advancement within the c. 2100 -
> 2400 c.e. "interplanetary era" to be ridiculously slow. And I find it funny
> that the "nanotech era" of the "backyarders" comes roughly a dang half
> millennia from now! LOL
>
> http://www.orionsarm.com/main.html
>
> http://www.orionsarm.com/timeline.html
>
> Has anyone ever tried to create an alternate OA timeline along the lines of
> what I envision?

The future is collapsing into the present.

When AC Clarke wrote _Against the Fall of Night_ he had the
construction of AIs (the Mad Mind, Vanamonde) billions of years into
the future.  The reality is that he darn near lived long enough to see
them.

The only thing that drags out future timelines is the distances
between stars, assuming there is not some way around the speed of
light.

My personal view of the future has changed repeatedly.  It could
change again I suppose.

Right now I don't think there will be any physical state humans left
by the end of this century.

This is my attempt on humans being seduced into cyberspace in a short story.

http://www.terasemjournals.org/GN0202/henson.html

Keith


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Jan  7 01:51:18 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 12:21:18 +1030
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name? (was: YES! to
	Transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0901061348r410e2820k9749e529bf1a2e49@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090105154116.022b2518@satx.rr.com>
	<796383.54557.qm@web56501.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<580930c20901060505x25ac6b50v66a3dab71ebfb650@mail.gmail.com>
	<55ad6af70901061329g2d4011f5td2dec13237bc7e59@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0901061348r410e2820k9749e529bf1a2e49@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0901061751s67a0c665me98d496f6fb10647@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/7 BillK <pharos at gmail.com>:
> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Bryan Bishop  wrote:
> <snip>
>> Whatever happened to the hobbyist machinist, anyway?
>>
> They died out between your grandad's generation and your dad's
> generation. After car engines became too complex to strip down and
> rebuild in a weekend. When things became 'black boxes' with no
> serviceable parts inside. 'Tinkerers' have nearly died out.
>
> Think now. When your toaster breaks down what do you do?
> You either,
> 1)  throw it away and buy another,  or,
> 2) take it round to grandad, who disappears into his shed for an hour
> or two, then returns it to you, working perfectly and shining so you
> can see your face in it.
>
> But grandad won't be around much longer.
>
>
> BillK

I work with one of those grandads. Ex tv repairman. Finds burnt out
components on circuit boards by smell (seriously). Personally I can
barely find where the oil goes in my car, so those kinds of skills
humble me.

Fairly closely related to what Bill is saying above, this paper:
http://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/industrialpolicycarson0109.pdf

Some of it feels a bit emotive, but it seems to have a lot of
footnotes, so maybe it's all well supported? Great reading though,
made me want to go and find out how those, you know, tool thingies
work.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting
(http://emlynoregan.com is currently down, see
http://point7.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/scarcity-mode-emlynoregancom-is-down/)


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Jan  7 01:53:09 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 12:23:09 +1030
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name? (was: YES! to
	Transhumanism)
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0901061751s67a0c665me98d496f6fb10647@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090105154116.022b2518@satx.rr.com>
	<796383.54557.qm@web56501.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<580930c20901060505x25ac6b50v66a3dab71ebfb650@mail.gmail.com>
	<55ad6af70901061329g2d4011f5td2dec13237bc7e59@mail.gmail.com>
	<ee50357e0901061348r410e2820k9749e529bf1a2e49@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0901061751s67a0c665me98d496f6fb10647@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0901061753p6119defesfef6404fa2ffb172@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/7 Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com>:
> 2009/1/7 BillK <pharos at gmail.com>:
>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 9:29 PM, Bryan Bishop  wrote:
>> <snip>
>>> Whatever happened to the hobbyist machinist, anyway?
>>>
>> They died out between your grandad's generation and your dad's
>> generation. After car engines became too complex to strip down and
>> rebuild in a weekend. When things became 'black boxes' with no
>> serviceable parts inside. 'Tinkerers' have nearly died out.
>>
>> Think now. When your toaster breaks down what do you do?
>> You either,
>> 1)  throw it away and buy another,  or,
>> 2) take it round to grandad, who disappears into his shed for an hour
>> or two, then returns it to you, working perfectly and shining so you
>> can see your face in it.
>>
>> But grandad won't be around much longer.
>>
>>
>> BillK
>
> I work with one of those grandads. Ex tv repairman. Finds burnt out
> components on circuit boards by smell (seriously). Personally I can
> barely find where the oil goes in my car, so those kinds of skills
> humble me.
>
> Fairly closely related to what Bill is saying above, this paper:
> http://c4ss.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/01/industrialpolicycarson0109.pdf
>

Oh, I should say, part I is a bit "-1 Flamebait", but in part II it
starts to get substantive, and really interesting.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting
(http://emlynoregan.com is currently down, see
http://point7.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/scarcity-mode-emlynoregancom-is-down/)


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Jan  7 03:28:43 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 21:28:43 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Will Will free Free Will?
In-Reply-To: <a40a2a7b0812290926m6c74cdb3la253617a10268fb3@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <a40a2a7b0812271709u79a8d191h920f4121f1b04799@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30812280557x7caa5105se6b1e8dbff06b100@mail.gmail.com>
	<4957F2C0.5030902@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30812281419x4d0abcb3q60fd7e8060cc93b4@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20081228162730.0253ae88@satx.rr.com>
	<a40a2a7b0812281631w3c714c18s5c9974bb10101335@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0812282124t7fd2a3a3u41f648900bbfff3f@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20081229031334.022e2500@satx.rr.com>
	<1EABF6A8C3E84B0AB89C064AA2F1B874@spike>
	<a40a2a7b0812290926m6c74cdb3la253617a10268fb3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090106212615.05b10830@satx.rr.com>

At 12:26 PM 12/29/2008 -0500, Will Steinberg wrote:

>Damn my name.

Try this for size:

<http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.0871v1.pdf>

<..."In the end, however, it is
clear that neither determinism nor randomness is good
for free will. If nature is fundamentally random, then
outcomes of our actions are also completely beyond our
control: randomness is just as bad as determinism"[2].
Here the term 'randomness' refers to 'exclusion of order
and control', and not 'not completely determined by the
past'.

This paper aims to show that quantum physics does
not entail the presumed incompatibility of quantum randomness
with order and control. Section II argues on
the basis of the before-before experiment that quantum
randomness can be controlled by unobservable influences
from outside spacetime and, therefore, is compatible with
freedom in principle: Both quantum randomness and free
will, refer to agency which is not exclusively determined
by the past. Section III answers a number of other objections.
Section IV concludes by stating that one should
look at free will as a primitive principle for explaining
why the laws of Nature are quantum, instead of looking
at the quantum as the model for explaining free will.>

Highly unlikely, but hey.



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Jan  7 05:24:13 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 23:24:13 -0600
Subject: [ExI] detox the thetans, kill the kid?
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090106232224.023b5b90@satx.rr.com>

<http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gf_kfpDYEizNJ5Ev9gnwFgYqSTcwD95HUG1G0>

<Kelly Preston blamed household cleaners and fertilizers for the 
disease and said a detoxification program based on Scientology 
teachings helped improve [Jett Travolta's] health, according to 
People magazine.

Meissner said there is scientific evidence linking 
professional-strength carpet cleaners with the disease.

Davis, the Scientology spokesman, acknowledged the detoxification 
program, but said its benefits are spiritual.

"Scientology is a religion," he said. "We deal with the spirit, and 
mental and spiritual factors that affect someone's happiness and well-being." >



From stathisp at gmail.com  Wed Jan  7 05:29:16 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:29:16 +1100
Subject: [ExI] reconsidering the Orion's Arm timeline...
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d0901061649u328bb6f3vd691c5e8e3061579@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2d6187670901051922h30a245bei3de91cc7dc09c279@mail.gmail.com>
	<d1988d2d0901061649u328bb6f3vd691c5e8e3061579@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30901062129u5c57b7a0wafbe885ab1a1672f@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/7 Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com>:

> This is my attempt on humans being seduced into cyberspace in a short story.
>
> http://www.terasemjournals.org/GN0202/henson.html

Is "seduced" a good word? Sometimes I talk to people the possibility
of a human future in cyberspace and they are horrified. I counter that
no-one will be forced but instead they will undergo the change
voluntarily, because once they understand it or experience it they
will see its advantages. Comes the reply: "So people won't be forced,
they'll be seduced! That's just as bad!"


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From eschatoon at gmail.com  Wed Jan  7 05:46:14 2009
From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 06:46:14 +0100
Subject: [ExI] What's in a transhumanist name?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090106124603.05b72ef0@satx.rr.com>
References: <mailman.190.1231210435.96.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<641025.90391.qm@web27006.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090106124603.05b72ef0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90901062146g168c305er9a7248dd5848f41f@mail.gmail.com>

Love VR worlds yes, certainly, but VR worlds are not the main focus.

A ludic conduit into the mass mind: yes, this is the idea.

Captain Wii and her Virtual Rangers - I love that, but this label
would stop working when the Wii loses novelty market share, think of
Captain Amiga and her Virtual Rangers. Tech brand names lose their sex
appeal in no time.

G.

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 8:03 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> At 11:32 AM 1/6/2009 +0000, Tom Nowell wrote:
>
>> If I'm not mistaken, the Order of Cosmic Engineers held their launch event
>> in Warcraft. If they're an organisation with 100% warcrack-lovers as their
>> founders, it is hardly surprising they have a name designed to appeal to WoW
>> players.
>>
>>  The whole image I get of the organisation is of people who love virtual
>> worlds.
>
> On reflection I see that this is clearly correct. Looking at the group's
> name from that perspective, my initial qualms are not just groundless but
> obtuse, completely missing the point. If it's a sort of  >H gamers' enclave
> within established fantasy worlds, it has to reflect that milieu (whether
> out of the sheer delight and playfulness of doing so, or as an entrist ploy
> into virtual gamespace). Still, this doesn't really seem consistent with the
> rather solemn high-toned tenor of much of the Prospectus. I dunno. If it's
> seen as a ludic conduit into the mass mind, while World
> Transhumanism/Humanity-Plus or whatever is more for policy wonks in suits
> and ties, it probably wouldn't hurt if it called itself Sergeant Saturn and
> the Men of Tomorrow--
> <http://homepage3.nifty.com/captainfuture/mag_contents.html>--or Captain Wii
> and her Virtual Rangers.
>
> Damien Broderick
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
aka Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Jan  7 05:58:46 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 16:28:46 +1030
Subject: [ExI] reconsidering the Orion's Arm timeline...
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30901062129u5c57b7a0wafbe885ab1a1672f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2d6187670901051922h30a245bei3de91cc7dc09c279@mail.gmail.com>
	<d1988d2d0901061649u328bb6f3vd691c5e8e3061579@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30901062129u5c57b7a0wafbe885ab1a1672f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0901062158u4b8566c2ge30064cbf50aa1f@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/7 Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>:
> 2009/1/7 Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com>:
>
>> This is my attempt on humans being seduced into cyberspace in a short story.
>>
>> http://www.terasemjournals.org/GN0202/henson.html
>
> Is "seduced" a good word? Sometimes I talk to people the possibility
> of a human future in cyberspace and they are horrified. I counter that
> no-one will be forced but instead they will undergo the change
> voluntarily, because once they understand it or experience it they
> will see its advantages. Comes the reply: "So people won't be forced,
> they'll be seduced! That's just as bad!"

I think it'll be more or less like this:

http://www.angryflower.com/borg27.gif

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting
(http://emlynoregan.com is currently down, see
http://point7.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/scarcity-mode-emlynoregancom-is-down/)


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Wed Jan  7 06:05:18 2009
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 23:05:18 -0700
Subject: [ExI] reconsidering the Orion's Arm timeline...
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30901062129u5c57b7a0wafbe885ab1a1672f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2d6187670901051922h30a245bei3de91cc7dc09c279@mail.gmail.com>
	<d1988d2d0901061649u328bb6f3vd691c5e8e3061579@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30901062129u5c57b7a0wafbe885ab1a1672f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d1988d2d0901062205i5efdc57ay9347fd6c11dfee65@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 10:29 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/1/7 Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com>:
>
>> This is my attempt on humans being seduced into cyberspace in a short story.
>>
>> http://www.terasemjournals.org/GN0202/henson.html
>
> Is "seduced" a good word? Sometimes I talk to people the possibility
> of a human future in cyberspace and they are horrified. I counter that
> no-one will be forced but instead they will undergo the change
> voluntarily, because once they understand it or experience it they
> will see its advantages. Comes the reply: "So people won't be forced,
> they'll be seduced! That's just as bad!"

Yeah.  :-(

Do you see any way that people can avoid what happens in the story?

This short story is actually the second chapter in unfinished novel
set beyond the singularity.  It's a world with a few people left in
it, but most are gone.  This chapter was to explain what happened to
the missing people.  It's partly centered around the difficulty of
keeping the remaining population from going *poof.*

Charles Stross in :_Halting State_ put it this way:

"Someday we're all going to get brain implants and experience this
directly. Someday everyone is going to live their lives out in places
like this, vacant bodies tended by machines of loving grace while
their minds go on before us into strange spaces where the meat cannot
follow. You can see it coming, slamming towards you out of the future,
like the empty white static that is all anyone has ever heard from
beyond the stars: a Final Solution to the human condition, an answer
to the Fermi paradox, lights on at home and all the windows tightly
shuttered. Because it's a thing of beauty, the ability to spin the
cloth of reality, and you're a sucker for it: Isn't story-telling what
being human is all about?"

Keith


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Jan  7 06:43:25 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 17:13:25 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Zotero: The Next-Generation Research Tool
In-Reply-To: <4959A0FE.5060607@mac.com>
References: <4959A0FE.5060607@mac.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0901062243u3a399352s987b229f148e6108@mail.gmail.com>

I'm giving Zotero a go (for my own knowledge management), it seems ok.
 A bit formsy, but pretty cool, better than bookmarks.

The tour video is good to watch, but has no controls (pause, play,
seek). Which is a total pain in the butt. But it's on youtube here:
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=PgwMggLg71M

2008/12/30 samantha <sjatkins at mac.com>:
> If you do any kind of research, writing with citations or just want a
> convenient knowledge management tool check this out.  Be sure to view the
> video on the page to see what this can do.
>
> http://www.zotero.org/
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting
(http://emlynoregan.com is currently down, see
http://point7.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/scarcity-mode-emlynoregancom-is-down/)


From stefan.pernar at gmail.com  Wed Jan  7 07:03:50 2009
From: stefan.pernar at gmail.com (Stefan Pernar)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:03:50 +0800
Subject: [ExI] Zotero: The Next-Generation Research Tool
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0901062243u3a399352s987b229f148e6108@mail.gmail.com>
References: <4959A0FE.5060607@mac.com>
	<710b78fc0901062243u3a399352s987b229f148e6108@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <944947f20901062303h4a854abfi84d415f1fd2cba00@mail.gmail.com>

I am using it for my book project and like it. Operates well with Open
Office.
Stefan

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm giving Zotero a go (for my own knowledge management), it seems ok.
>  A bit formsy, but pretty cool, better than bookmarks.
>
> The tour video is good to watch, but has no controls (pause, play,
> seek). Which is a total pain in the butt. But it's on youtube here:
> http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=PgwMggLg71M
>
> 2008/12/30 samantha <sjatkins at mac.com>:
> > If you do any kind of research, writing with citations or just want a
> > convenient knowledge management tool check this out.  Be sure to view the
> > video on the page to see what this can do.
> >
> > http://www.zotero.org/
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Emlyn
>
> http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
> http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting
> (http://emlynoregan.com is currently down, see
>
> http://point7.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/scarcity-mode-emlynoregancom-is-down/
> )
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
Stefan Pernar
Skype: Stefan.Pernar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090107/ab8d7a10/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Jan  7 10:35:12 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 11:35:12 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Will Will free Free Will?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090106212615.05b10830@satx.rr.com>
References: <a40a2a7b0812271709u79a8d191h920f4121f1b04799@mail.gmail.com>
	<4957F2C0.5030902@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30812281419x4d0abcb3q60fd7e8060cc93b4@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20081228162730.0253ae88@satx.rr.com>
	<a40a2a7b0812281631w3c714c18s5c9974bb10101335@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0812282124t7fd2a3a3u41f648900bbfff3f@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20081229031334.022e2500@satx.rr.com>
	<1EABF6A8C3E84B0AB89C064AA2F1B874@spike>
	<a40a2a7b0812290926m6c74cdb3la253617a10268fb3@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090106212615.05b10830@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20901070235o365a0be7kc310649f316f0639@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> <..."In the end, however, it is
> clear that neither determinism nor randomness is good
> for free will.">

"Free will" as a kind of non-computability, as in Wolfram's NKS, is a
somewhat minimalist yet sensible approach to the prob, IMHO.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Jan  7 14:37:05 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 7 Jan 2009 15:37:05 +0100
Subject: [ExI] [Hplus2] Folding@Home
In-Reply-To: <op.undyy912npqeov@expansion>
References: <580930c20901031351q6797344br9d7b6c3319899427@mail.gmail.com>
	<op.undyy912npqeov@expansion>
Message-ID: <580930c20901070637s1e09b044g3376d5826c53704a@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 1:14 PM, Danila Medvedev <danila.medvedev at mail.ru> wrote:
> There are already several teams, including team "Transhumans", team number
> 43003.

Yes, absolutely, my fault. OTOH, is it possible to check the list of
all existing teams, and not just those scoring top points, in order of
the respective scores? If it is, I could not manage to discover how to
do it.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From micheals at msu.edu  Wed Jan  7 06:31:01 2009
From: micheals at msu.edu (sam micheal)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 01:31:01 -0500
Subject: [ExI] perfect world is not - but can be fun in a group..
Message-ID: <49644C25.4020602@msu.edu>

i hate the difficulty of leveling there and the dependency on gold (both 
cubigold and game gold) but .. it's nice to work in a group as EP (the 
healer / resurrector of the group); it's nice to be needed and fulfill a 
specified function in the group .. and you are killing virtual monsters 
not real humans .. so i think the game is not overall a destructive 
force in our society .. it actually can bring us together .. true, there 
is too much pking (player killing) going on .. but i think they do that 
out of boredom more than anything .. maybe boredom and frustration .. 
but you just let it go - don't take it personally - and move on.. on the 
Malaysian servers, u can find many ppl from around the world willing to 
work together for a common goal (finding mold or killing a boss;) .. 
it's cool to be part of an international team of 'monster squashers' ;)  
hehe .. sigh .. there was a while when i was escaping too much into the 
game .. spent way too much time on it .. neglected my 'real life' .. but 
.. everything goes in phases .. it didn't last forever .. i play now 
just to level and help others out .. it's fun to meet interesting ppl 
from around the world :)

i hate the commercial aspects but .. it would not be there without them..

the graphics and magic capabilities (is there anything they did NOT 
steal from d&d???;) are cool :)

i like pets too (in the game and irl).

i recommend it for any teenager who feels neglected or excluded irl .. 
just try to moderate it (asking the impossible?) .. try to find a decent 
guild..

the following is something i did for a java class - an object oriented 
problem decomposition of consciousness.. robot rights! robots rock! ;)

A COnscious MAchine Simulator -- ACOMAS

Salvatore Gerard Micheal, 06/JAN/09

 

Objects

   2 cross verifying senses (simulated)

      hearing (stereo)

      seeing (stereo)

   short-term symbol register (8^3 symbols arranged in 8x8x8 array)

   rule-base (self verifying and extending)

   3D visualization register

   models of reality (at least 2)

   morality (unmodifiable and uncircumventable)

      don't steal, kill, lie, or harm

   goal list (modifiable, prioritized)

   output devices

      robotic arms (simulated -- 2)

      voice-synthesizer and speaker

      video display unit

   local environment (simulated)

   operator (simulated, controlled by operator)

 

Purpose

 test feasibility of construct for an actual conscious machine

 discover timing requirements for working prototype

 discover specifications of objects

 discover implications/consequences of enhanced intelligence

  (humans have 7 short-term symbol registers)

 discover implications/consequences of emotionless consciousness

 

Specifications -- The registers are the core of the device -- the 
(qualified) 'controllers' of the system (acting on goal list), the 
reasoners of the system (identifying rules), but all constrained by 
morality. The goal list should be instantaneously modifiable. For 
instance, an operator can request "show me your goal list" .. "delete 
that item" or "move that item to the top" .. "learn the rules of chess" 
and the device should comply immediately. Otherwise, the device plays 
with its environment -- learning new rules and proposing new experiments.

 

The purpose of the cross verifying senses is to reinforce the 'sense of 
identity' established by these, registers, and model of reality. The 
reason for 'at least 2' models is to provide a 'means-ends' basis for 
problem solving -- one model to represent local environment 'as is' and 
another for the desired outcome of the top goal. The purpose for 
arranging the short-term register in a 3D array is to give the capacity 
for 'novel thought' processes (humans have a tendency to think in linear 
sequential terms). The reason for designing a self verifying and 
extending rule-base is because that has a tendency to be a data and 
processing intensive activity -- if we designed the primary task of the 
device to be a 'rule-base analyzer', undoubtedly the device would spend 
the bulk of its time on related tasks (thereby creating a rule-base 
analyzer device and not a conscious machine). The 'models of reality' 
could be as simple as a list of objects and locations. Or, they could be 
a virtual reality implemented on a dedicated machine. This applies to 
the 'local environment' as well. For operator convenience, the simulated 
local environment should be in the form of a virtual reality. So the 
operator would interact with the device in a virtual world (in the 
simulated version). In this version, the senses, robot arms, and 
operator presence -- would all be virtual. This should be clarified to 
the device so that any transition to 'real reality' would not have 
destructive consequences.

 

My ultimate purpose of creating a conscious machine is not out of ego or 
self aggrandizement. I simply want to see if it can be done. If it can 
be done, then create something creative with potential. My mother argues 
a robot can never 'procreate' because they are not 'flesh and blood'. It 
can never have insight or other elusive human qualities. I argue that 
they can 'procreate' in their own way and are only limited by their 
creators. If we can 'distill' the essence of consciousness in a 
construct (like above), if we can implement it on a set of computer 
hardware and software, if we give that construct the capacity for 
growth, if that construct has even a minimal creative ability (such as 
with GA/GP), and critically limit its behavior by morality (such as 
above), we have created a sentient being (not just an 
artificial/synthetic consciousness). I focus on morality because if such 
a device became widespread, undoubtedly they would be abused to perform 
'unsavory' tasks which would have fatal legal consequences for inventor 
and producer alike.

 

In this context, I propose we establish 'robot rights' before they are 
developed in order to provide a framework for dealing with abuses and 
'violations of law'. Now, all this may seem like science fiction to 
most. But I contend we have focused far too long on what we call 'AI' 
and expert systems. For too long we have blocked real progress in 
machine intelligence by one of two things: mystifying 'the human animal' 
(by basically saying it can't be done) -- or -- staring at an 
inappropriate paradigm. It's good to understand linguistics and vision 
-- without that understanding, perhaps we could not implement certain 
portions of the construct above. But unless we focus on the mechanisms 
of consciousness, we will never model it, simulate it, or create it 
artificially.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090107/e4247dba/attachment.html>

From pjmanney at gmail.com  Thu Jan  8 16:16:02 2009
From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 08:16:02 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Doctor wants his kidney back in divorce settlement
Message-ID: <29666bf30901080816o7cefc482wfd77971fec86397b@mail.gmail.com>

Wow.  That's gotta hurt.  Can't wait to see how it all comes out.

http://video.aol.com/video/doctor-wants-kidney-back-as-part-of-divorce/2380237

PJ


From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Thu Jan  8 20:50:18 2009
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 12:50:18 -0800
Subject: [ExI] New update!
In-Reply-To: <29666bf30901080816o7cefc482wfd77971fec86397b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <29666bf30901080816o7cefc482wfd77971fec86397b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9BEEB2EC2B0C4A4F85499E1A01768EED@GinaSony>

Dear Extropes, I have a new update on my most recent MRI results and I have a new shop featuring my artwork on wearable's and more. I also have new artwork and animation as well as new Dermal Display animation appearances on Japanese TV and in a French documentary! I have clips of them for you to watch. Click the following link to read the new update: 
http://ginamiller.blogspot.com/2009/01/lots-of-topics-in-this-post.html

Hope you are all having a happy New Year, Gina


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/20090108/c6cc49c2/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Jan  8 04:57:47 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Wed, 07 Jan 2009 20:57:47 -0800
Subject: [ExI] [Fwd: Announcing the birth of my pumpkin-girl]
Message-ID: <496587CB.4090108@mac.com>

An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: Amara Graps <amara at amara.com>
Subject: Announcing the birth of my pumpkin-girl
Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2009 10:38:03 -0700
Size: 2542808
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090107/1f4ede3a/attachment.eml>

From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Jan  8 23:17:41 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 23:17:41 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Balloon to space
Message-ID: <ee50357e0901081517l32d3ec77r6ce5b0302e7410fd@mail.gmail.com>

<http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/jan/HQ_09-003_Antarctic_Balloons.html>

This seven-million-cubic-foot super-pressure balloon is the largest
single-cell, super-pressure, fully-sealed balloon ever flown. When
development ends, NASA will have a 22 million-cubic-foot balloon that
can carry a one-ton instrument to an altitude of more than 110,000
feet, which is three to four times higher than passenger planes fly.

Ultra-long duration missions using the super pressure balloon cost
considerably less than a satellite and the scientific instruments
flown can be retrieved and launched again, making them ideal very-high
altitude research platforms.
----------------------

Spaceship 1 was only about 3 to 4 tons loaded weight and launched at
50,000 ft from White Knight 1.
So a higher launch from balloon with less fuel (less weight) seems
nearly within reach.


BillK


From msd001 at gmail.com  Thu Jan  8 23:20:23 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2009 18:20:23 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Doctor wants his kidney back in divorce settlement
In-Reply-To: <29666bf30901080816o7cefc482wfd77971fec86397b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <29666bf30901080816o7cefc482wfd77971fec86397b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240901081520s5eddfe7bkaf27bb01352ab311@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:16 AM, PJ Manney <pjmanney at gmail.com> wrote:
> Wow.  That's gotta hurt.  Can't wait to see how it all comes out.
>
> http://video.aol.com/video/doctor-wants-kidney-back-as-part-of-divorce/2380237
>

Ew, gross.

Oh wait, you meant the outcome of the case... :p


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jan  8 23:40:27 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 17:40:27 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Penguin in wikispace
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0901081517l32d3ec77r6ce5b0302e7410fd@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <ee50357e0901081517l32d3ec77r6ce5b0302e7410fd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090108173848.022c5950@satx.rr.com>

At 11:17 PM 1/8/2009 +0000, you wrote:

>BillK

Bill, is this you and your penguin?

<http://travel.wikia.com/wiki/User:BillK> ?

Damien Broderick 



From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Jan  9 02:16:26 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Samantha=A0_Atkins?=)
Date: Thu, 08 Jan 2009 18:16:26 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Amara catching up
References: <p06230907c58c57d3b31e@[192.168.0.66]>
Message-ID: <CC98574A-6C3A-4324-A244-DDB42F38572A@mac.com>



Begin forwarded message:
>
> Today is day number two at home and away from the idiot doctors and
> hospital, so yes definitely more relaxed. I'm trying to catch up on
> sleep, but I'm on a 2-3 hour feeding/pooping/burping cycle. I'm
> trying to sleep when she does, but I have things I must do in those
> short periods too. Also, I have to watch _everything_ that I eat and
> drink because it gets in my breast milk and affects the baby, and
> I'm already making mistakes. I have to build up my blood and
> strength because I'm anemic from her birth, so I drank a bunch of
> orange juice Tuesday to help absorb the iron in the leafy
> vegetables, and it gave Vija gas and burned her bottom and kept
> everybody sleepless for the next day.  So it seems to be fine line
> with food that I have to follow these days.
>
> Here is a public link to her picture on my Facebook account:
> http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1134596&l=e2592&id=592464123
>
> and her birth announcement from Tuesday.
>
> Announcing the birth of my pumpkin-girl:
>
> Vija* (pronounced Veeya) Alexandra Graps
> 8 lbs, 2 oz, 21 inches (and big feet :-)),
> born 13:20 MST, Friday 2 January 2009
> after a difficult 15 hour back labor natural birth.
>
> Mom and daughter were able to leave Boulder Community Hospital
> Family Birthing Center (finally) on  Monday 5 January, afternoon,
> and are now resting/adjusting/bonding/recovering  at home.
>
> * means a pretty, fascinating weave, like a lei of of flowers.
> Latvian Name Day: 5 April.
>
> You can send her email to: vijagraps at gmail.com. I'll save them
> for her until she can read them. (Her Facebook account on the way.)
>
> After a ~1 liter blood loss, sum of 8 hours sleep from Thursday night
> to Sunday night, and baby tinged slightly with jaundice, I'm
> catching up physically, 3 hours at a time.
> I expect I'll be  more  coherent soon.
>
> Amara
>
>
> --  
>
> Amara Graps, PhD      www.amara.com
> Research Scientist, Southwest Research Institute (SwRI), Boulder,  
> Colorado

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090108/c05bf3bd/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Jan  9 10:02:46 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 10:02:46 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Penguin in wikispace
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090108173848.022c5950@satx.rr.com>
References: <ee50357e0901081517l32d3ec77r6ce5b0302e7410fd@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090108173848.022c5950@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0901090202p312b8f01xaad09365e818f31e@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 11:40 PM, Damien Broderick wrote:
> Bill, is this you and your penguin?
> <http://travel.wikia.com/wiki/User:BillK> ?
>


Actually, I'm the penguin.  The man in the red jacket is my assistant.


BillK


PS
(Seriously, there are hundreds of BillKs on the internet, only a few
of which are me. And then there are all the other names as well.
Thunderstar Stormbringer doesn't quite fit in on the exi-list.).


From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Fri Jan  9 12:42:26 2009
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 05:42:26 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Balloon to space
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0901081517l32d3ec77r6ce5b0302e7410fd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0901081517l32d3ec77r6ce5b0302e7410fd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <d1988d2d0901090442w2a60344gd1a11431b2452f06@mail.gmail.com>

If you work out the math involved, going up to 50-100,000 feet doesn't
buy you much in improved payload.

What it does get you is reduced "max Q" which means you can use
lighter structure for your rocket.

Keith Henson

On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:17 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> <http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/jan/HQ_09-003_Antarctic_Balloons.html>
>
> This seven-million-cubic-foot super-pressure balloon is the largest
> single-cell, super-pressure, fully-sealed balloon ever flown. When
> development ends, NASA will have a 22 million-cubic-foot balloon that
> can carry a one-ton instrument to an altitude of more than 110,000
> feet, which is three to four times higher than passenger planes fly.
>
> Ultra-long duration missions using the super pressure balloon cost
> considerably less than a satellite and the scientific instruments
> flown can be retrieved and launched again, making them ideal very-high
> altitude research platforms.
> ----------------------
>
> Spaceship 1 was only about 3 to 4 tons loaded weight and launched at
> 50,000 ft from White Knight 1.
> So a higher launch from balloon with less fuel (less weight) seems
> nearly within reach.
>
>
> BillK
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From russell.rukin at lineone.net  Fri Jan  9 13:02:54 2009
From: russell.rukin at lineone.net (Russell Rukin)
Date: Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:02:54 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Balloon to space
In-Reply-To: <d1988d2d0901090442w2a60344gd1a11431b2452f06@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0901081517l32d3ec77r6ce5b0302e7410fd@mail.gmail.com>
	<d1988d2d0901090442w2a60344gd1a11431b2452f06@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49674AFE.8010401@lineone.net>

I've always wondered why projects involved with the space elevator 
aren't looking into lighter than air options that can at least achieve a 
partial assent?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5025388/


Russell R



Keith Henson wrote:
> If you work out the math involved, going up to 50-100,000 feet doesn't
> buy you much in improved payload.
>
> What it does get you is reduced "max Q" which means you can use
> lighter structure for your rocket.
>
> Keith Henson
>
> On Thu, Jan 8, 2009 at 4:17 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> <http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2009/jan/HQ_09-003_Antarctic_Balloons.html>
>>
>> This seven-million-cubic-foot super-pressure balloon is the largest
>> single-cell, super-pressure, fully-sealed balloon ever flown. When
>> development ends, NASA will have a 22 million-cubic-foot balloon that
>> can carry a one-ton instrument to an altitude of more than 110,000
>> feet, which is three to four times higher than passenger planes fly.
>>
>> Ultra-long duration missions using the super pressure balloon cost
>> considerably less than a satellite and the scientific instruments
>> flown can be retrieved and launched again, making them ideal very-high
>> altitude research platforms.
>> ----------------------
>>
>> Spaceship 1 was only about 3 to 4 tons loaded weight and launched at
>> 50,000 ft from White Knight 1.
>> So a higher launch from balloon with less fuel (less weight) seems
>> nearly within reach.
>>
>>
>> BillK
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 kanzure at gmail.com  Fri Jan  9 15:01:27 2009
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2009 09:01:27 -0600
Subject: [ExI] DIYbio on O'Reilly & New Scientist
In-Reply-To: <7870cdcd-bfce-4ee6-ab05-1f35bd66e04b@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
References: <7870cdcd-bfce-4ee6-ab05-1f35bd66e04b@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com>
Message-ID: <55ad6af70901090701p5d20e399ve9fdab034ec206db@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 8:13 AM, Jim H <gahaga at gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126881.400-rise-of-the-garage-genome-hackers.html?page=1
> and
> http://radar.oreilly.com/2009/01/four-short-links-9-jan-2009.html#

07 January 2009 by Phil McKenna, Boston

KATHERINE AULL's laboratory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, lacks a few
mod cons. "Down here I have a thermocycler I bought on eBay for 59
bucks," she says, pulling out a large, box-shaped device she uses to
copy short strands of DNA. "The rest is just home brew," she adds,
pointing to a centrifuge made out of a power drill and plastic food
container, and a styrofoam incubator warmed with a heating pad
normally used in terrariums.

In fact, Aull's lab is a closet less than 1 square metre in size in
the shared apartment she lives in. Yet amid the piles of clothes she
recently concocted vials of an entirely new genetically modified
organism.

Aull, who works as a synthetic biologist for a biotech company by day,
created her home lab after hearing about a contest on the science
fiction website io9.com for "mad scientists with homebrew closet labs,
grassroots geneticists, and garage genome hackers".

After two months of tinkering, she engineered a microbe that she says
is capable of performing simple logic operations, which could be the
forerunner to basic biological computers. "Biology is wet, squishy and
imprecise. It drives engineers insane," Aull says. "This would allow
us to take the noise out of biology."
One amateur biologist engineered a microbe she says is capable of
simple logic operations

Despite her success, Aull was edged out of first place in the
competition by Vijaykumar Meli, a graduate student at the National
Centre for Plant Genome Research in New Delhi, India, who designed
bacteria that could help rice plants process nitrogen more
efficiently, reducing fertiliser use.

The competition is part of a do-it-yourself movement that hopes to
spark a revolution in biotechnology. It is based on the emerging field
of synthetic biology, which uses genes and other cell components as
the building blocks for new organisms or devices. The movement is
trying to open up this field to anyone with a passion for tweaking DNA
in their spare time - from biologists to software engineers to people
who just like it as a hobby. The hope is that encouraging a wider mix
of people to take part could lead to advances that would not happen
otherwise, just as tinkering by the Homebrew Computer Club hackers of
the 1970s spawned the first personal computers.

"Biology is becoming less of a science and more of a technology," says
Mackenzie Cowell, co-founder of the group DIYbio, which aims to be an
"Institution for the Amateur", providing scientists with resources
akin to those found in academia or industry. "There will be more
opportunity for people who didn't spend up to seven years getting a
PhD in the field," he says.

Meredith Patterson, a software engineer in San Francisco, is one such
amateur. She is engineering fluorescent yoghurt by zapping bacteria
with a $40 ultrasonic jewellery cleaner she set up in her kitchen. The
sound waves create pores in the bacteria's cell walls which stay open
for long enough for Patterson to insert genes that code for green
fluorescent proteins she bought from a biological supply company.

You might say that making glow-in-the-dark yoghurt is an end in
itself, but Patterson has a serious goal in mind: to engineer bacteria
that light up in the presence of melamine, the industrial chemical
recently found in infant formula in China, which injured hundreds of
children and killed at least six. At present, the principal test for
the toxin is chromatography, an expensive laboratory procedure. "Here
is a problem that was difficult to solve by conventional means,"
Patterson says. "People should have an inexpensive and portable test
to make sure their food is safe, but no lab was working on this, so I
said let's do it ourselves."

Patterson took up DIY biology as a hobby after doing some
bioinformatics work for a biotech company. "Biology is an interesting
puzzle. I learned the informatics tools to solve those puzzles, now
I'm interested in taking that to the next level and producing novel
organisms to solve problems," she says.

It's not hard to get in on the act either. Patterson uses resources
such as openwetware.org for research, and found the best growth medium
for yoghurt bacteria in a 1950s edition of a dairy science journal.
"Knowing how to do research helps, but the barrier for entry is pretty
low," she says.

DIYbio, which so far has around 20 active participants, held its first
meeting in Cambridge, MA, in May 2008. Amateurs were invited to
extract DNA for analysis from apples, oatmeal and their own saliva,
and learned how to make gel boxes and dyes - essential tools for
genetic fingerprinting.

Is it a good idea, though, to encourage "freelance" researchers to
experiment with DNA, however well-intentioned they may be? Not
everyone thinks so. Inexperienced hackers could pose a significant
public health threat, warns Richard Ebright, a biochemist at Rutgers
University in Piscataway, New Jersey. "Without any oversight from an
institution, colleagues or peers, the probability that a cataclysmic
entity might be constructed by someone unaware of known cautions is
significant," he says.

The greatest potential danger, he says, is that someone might
intentionally synthesise or recreate deadly pathogens like the 1918
flu strain, which killed an estimated 40 million people worldwide.
"That is on the edge of being within the technical capabilities of
someone working outside the laboratory environment."

In response to such fears and in anticipation of calls for the group
to be shut down, DIYbio has begun policing itself. Cowell says there
is now "a self-imposed moratorium on 'wetwork'", or all synthetic
biology experiments, until researchers can show that what they are
doing is safe. For the moment, the group is focusing on DNA
fingerprinting projects, with the analysis carried out by commercial
labs, rather than manipulating genetic information themselves.

The first such project is BioWeatherMap, a plot of the different
microbes, or "bioweather", to be found on street crossing buttons.
Over the next few months DIYbio hopes to mobilise amateur scientists
in Boston, San Francisco, Seattle and other cities to send in swab
samples from their nearest street corner. A commercial lab will then
sequence the microbes they find and DIYbio will post the results
online with the help of mapping software such as Google Maps.

"I think this is a perfect opportunity for high-school biology classes
to get exposed to genomics, sequencing and microbiology," says DIYbio
co-founder Jason Bobe, who expects to find hundreds or even thousands
of different species living on each crosswalk button.

Ultimately, Cowell hopes to set up a public lab where group members
can safely conduct experiments of the kind Aull managed in her closet.
In this he has the surprising support of George Church, a synthetic
biology researcher at Harvard University who in 2004 published a paper
claiming that the consequences of synthetic DNA misuse could be more
severe than chemical and nuclear weapons. He now says: "The world has
an energy crisis and a healthcare crisis that synthetic biology can
help solve; we need to go out and do it and the more people working on
this, the better."

Church argues that licensing and monitoring would-be DIY biologists is
better than alienating them. "It's going to happen anyway; you can
make it go underground or you can try to shape it," he says.

Church has agreed to act as an adviser to DIYbio, which will give the
group greater academic oversight and could allow it to resume
experimental work with less fear of being shut down.

As for Aull, she is coming out of the closet with plans to help DIYbio
set up protocols for safe lab practices. She says she will donate her
thermocycler to the group if it is able to secure a public lab and
she's also planning to carry out further work on her microbe to
confirm it really is performing logic operations.

Based on her own experiences of DIY biology, including its
limitations, she says warnings of the dangers are overblown. "It's
like a baby that just rolled over for the first time and his aunt is
crying because she doesn't have anything to wear to his wedding."

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jan 10 19:04:11 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 11:04:11 -0800
Subject: [ExI] reconsidering the Orion's Arm timeline...
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30901062129u5c57b7a0wafbe885ab1a1672f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2d6187670901051922h30a245bei3de91cc7dc09c279@mail.gmail.com>
	<d1988d2d0901061649u328bb6f3vd691c5e8e3061579@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30901062129u5c57b7a0wafbe885ab1a1672f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4968F12B.8010607@mac.com>

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 2009/1/7 Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com>:
> 
>> This is my attempt on humans being seduced into cyberspace in a short story.
>>
>> http://www.terasemjournals.org/GN0202/henson.html
> 
> Is "seduced" a good word? Sometimes I talk to people the possibility
> of a human future in cyberspace and they are horrified. I counter that
> no-one will be forced but instead they will undergo the change
> voluntarily, because once they understand it or experience it they
> will see its advantages. Comes the reply: "So people won't be forced,
> they'll be seduced! That's just as bad!"
> 
> 

Wow.  Such a victim mentality some people have.  You offer them 
unlimited life span and they are the victim of your "seduction" if they 
say yes.

They will be "seduced" about the same way most people were seduced to 
finally buy one of those computer thingies or more universally, to get a 
cell phone.  When the advantages are large enough to overcome objections 
and the price becomes affordable people move.  Rationality demands that 
they move in such circumstances.  It is called "opportunity" and 
"choice".  The day we think those things are bad is the day we pack it 
up as completely incompetent to live, learn, change and grow.

- samantha



From dagonweb at gmail.com  Sat Jan 10 23:14:45 2009
From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 00:14:45 +0100
Subject: [ExI] reconsidering the Orion's Arm timeline...
In-Reply-To: <4968F12B.8010607@mac.com>
References: <2d6187670901051922h30a245bei3de91cc7dc09c279@mail.gmail.com>
	<d1988d2d0901061649u328bb6f3vd691c5e8e3061579@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30901062129u5c57b7a0wafbe885ab1a1672f@mail.gmail.com>
	<4968F12B.8010607@mac.com>
Message-ID: <bf3acbfc0901101514m27a9ed3euf0bb6b3c511f32ae@mail.gmail.com>

People, people... any topic of morality or good or evil only has  any
meaning in very narrow
margins. Most people cant apply consistency in ethical matters and the
average civilian
out there can be duped into being a concentration camp overseer for
airmiles. Moral
discussions about anything beyond same sex marriage or vatgrown hamburgers
drag out
for ages. As such most discussion about what would be prudent for the
baselines are not
equitable or like talking down to infants. Yu cannot let baselines decide on
any of this -
or decide for them. Let`s stop this sillyness. Lets for now call this the
"extropia tragedy"
and close this ... Lets hope we will never be faced to arbitrage over the
existentials of
baselines. We are not mature enough to do so yet.

On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 8:04 PM, samantha <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
>
>> 2009/1/7 Keith Henson <hkhenson at rogers.com>:
>> extro
>>
>>> This is my attempt on humans being seduced into cyberspace in a short
>>> story.
>>>
>>> http://www.terasemjournals.org/GN0202/henson.html
>>>
>>
>> Is "seduced" a good word? Sometimes I talk to people the possibility
>> of a human future in cyberspace and they are horrified. I counter that
>> no-one will be forced but instead they will undergo the change
>> voluntarily, because once they understand it or experience it they
>> will see its advantages. Comes the reply: "So people won't be forced,
>> they'll be seduced! That's just as bad!"
>>
>
> Wow.  Such a victim mentality some people have.  You offer them unlimited
> life span and they are the victim of your "seduction" if they say yes.
>
> They will be "seduced" about the same way most people were seduced to
> finally buy one of those computer thingies or more universally, to get a
> cell phone.  When the advantages are large enough to overcome objections and
> the price becomes affordable people move.  Rationality demands that they
> move in such circumstances.  It is called "opportunity" and "choice".  The
> day we think those things are bad is the day we pack it up as completely
> incompetent to live, learn, change and grow.
>
> - samantha
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090111/15523501/attachment.html>

From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Sun Jan 11 01:54:30 2009
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:54:30 -0700
Subject: [ExI] reconsidering the Orion's Arm timeline...
In-Reply-To: <bf3acbfc0901101514m27a9ed3euf0bb6b3c511f32ae@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2d6187670901051922h30a245bei3de91cc7dc09c279@mail.gmail.com>
	<d1988d2d0901061649u328bb6f3vd691c5e8e3061579@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30901062129u5c57b7a0wafbe885ab1a1672f@mail.gmail.com>
	<4968F12B.8010607@mac.com>
	<bf3acbfc0901101514m27a9ed3euf0bb6b3c511f32ae@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2d6187670901101754k4512d1b7o3400657a78efb4a6@mail.gmail.com>

 A kin of Cthulhu wrote:
Lets hope we will never be faced to arbitrage over the existentials of
baselines. We are not mature enough to do so yet.
>>>

And we still have a hard time even changing thread subject lines in a timely
way! LOL

John  : )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090110/e130bb7a/attachment.html>

From ben at goertzel.org  Sun Jan 11 12:54:49 2009
From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 07:54:49 -0500
Subject: [ExI] time-sensitive issue: voting members sought to participate in
	upcoming election for H+ (World Transhumanist Association)
In-Reply-To: <3cf171fe0901110452k74abb0deiecce9e9fb0d124c0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <3cf171fe0901110452k74abb0deiecce9e9fb0d124c0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3cf171fe0901110454jdb6d675t6af025d85431a528@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

Most of y'all are likely aware of the organization called the World
Transhumanist Association, and currently in the process of being
rebranded as "H+" aka "Humanity+"

I've been on the board of the organization since the middle of last
year and among other things have been helping out with the management
of the H+ magazine

http://www.hplusmagazine.com/

whose first issue got nearly 600,000 downloads.

The organization is in a phase of rapid growth and change, and I'm
hoping it can grow beyond its roots to become a major force in
spreading futurist memes throughout the world...

... which brings us to the purpose of the current message....

the Humanity+ (formerly World Transhumanist Association) Board
elections begin tomorrow, Monday January 11th.

To vote in the elections, you need to be a Supporting or Sustaining
Member.  Eight seats are open.

If you have any interest in such things, it would be great if you
could renew your membership or become a member by tonight so that you
can vote in next week's elections.

Here are the candidates running:

http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/more/hbrdc/

I'd like to especially recommend supporting the first eight candidates
listed at the URL: Sonia Arrison, George Dvorsky, Patri Friedman, Ben
Goertzel (big surprise), Stephane Gounari, Todd Huffman, Jonas Lamis,
and Mike LaTorra.

Sorry for the short notice, but if you see this in time and have the
interest, I hope you'll become a member by tonight so that you can
vote next week.

You can renew / become a member here for $25-$50 (please see middle of
page with the "1 Year" or "2 Year" buttons):

http://transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/join/

thx
Ben



-- 
Ben Goertzel, PhD
CEO, Novamente LLC and Biomind LLC
Director of Research, SIAI
ben at goertzel.org

"This is no place to stop -- half way between ape and angel"
-- Benjamin Disraeli


From scerir at libero.it  Sun Jan 11 14:19:28 2009
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 15:19:28 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Folding@Home
References: <580930c20901031351q6797344br9d7b6c3319899427@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <003e01c973f7$9df6e6d0$23094797@archimede>

http://arxiv.org/abs/0901.0866


From stefan.pernar at gmail.com  Sun Jan 11 18:02:50 2009
From: stefan.pernar at gmail.com (Stefan Pernar)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 02:02:50 +0800
Subject: [ExI] Humanity+ as self guided evolution
Message-ID: <944947f20901111002i432eac9l8777ec1af2c84885@mail.gmail.com>

Hi everyone,

The quote "The only constant is change" is commonly attributed to the Greek
philosopher Heraclitus and embodies the insight that nothing ever stays the
same. Charles Darwin later amended this idea to include the concept of a
qualifying retention mechanism favoring certain changes over others by
weeding out those changes that are detrimental to our ancestors existence:
natural selection.

We have reached a point in our history when very soon technology will enable
us to make virtually arbitrary changes to ourself. The mechanism of natural
selection however will continue to apply. Taking the evolutionary
perspective into account in our decision process concerning what changes to
make and which ones to discard will be an existential guide in helping us to
affect a positive transcension by preempting natural selection. For only
that which does not run against the plan of evolution has a chance to
continue to be.

I am running for the board of directors of Humanity+. Do vote for me if you
want to see this philosophy represented on the board =>
http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/more/hbrdc/

Thank you for your time and all the best for the new year of 2009.

Stefan Pernar
-- 
Stefan Pernar
Skype: Stefan.Pernar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090112/18872c00/attachment.html>

From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Mon Jan 12 02:53:30 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:23:30 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Humanity+ as self guided evolution
In-Reply-To: <944947f20901111002i432eac9l8777ec1af2c84885@mail.gmail.com>
References: <944947f20901111002i432eac9l8777ec1af2c84885@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0901111853k2c5af9a6w4a46d21c930bfea1@mail.gmail.com>

Bzzt, no! Next contestant please...

Seriously, do any of us here think that consideration of natural
selection should be the guide in transhuman self modification?

I guess in some degenerate sense, bits of natural selection always
apply. But what does this mean if we are living indefinite lifespans?
Or if we are reproducing by creating new genomes from scratch rather
than the genetic lucky dip we run now? Not so much I think.

And really, do we want natural selection involved here? It has always
seemed to me that the whole point of transhumanism was to get away
from nature's brutal bootstrap, and take charge of the processes of
life, so that we can substitute in our own arbitrarily evolved but
much loved values; love, compassion, fairness, altruism, opportunity!

Invoking natural selection in the same breath as transhumanism just
implies the bad days of eugenics. No.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting
(http://emlynoregan.com is currently down, see
http://point7.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/scarcity-mode-emlynoregancom-is-down/)

2009/1/12 Stefan Pernar <stefan.pernar at gmail.com>:
> Hi everyone,
>
> The quote "The only constant is change" is commonly attributed to the Greek
> philosopher Heraclitus and embodies the insight that nothing ever stays the
> same. Charles Darwin later amended this idea to include the concept of a
> qualifying retention mechanism favoring certain changes over others by
> weeding out those changes that are detrimental to our ancestors existence:
> natural selection.
>
> We have reached a point in our history when very soon technology will enable
> us to make virtually arbitrary changes to ourself. The mechanism of natural
> selection however will continue to apply. Taking the evolutionary
> perspective into account in our decision process concerning what changes to
> make and which ones to discard will be an existential guide in helping us to
> affect a positive transcension by preempting natural selection. For only
> that which does not run against the plan of evolution has a chance to
> continue to be.
>
> I am running for the board of directors of Humanity+. Do vote for me if you
> want to see this philosophy represented on the board =>
> http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/more/hbrdc/
>
> Thank you for your time and all the best for the new year of 2009.
>
> Stefan Pernar
> --
> Stefan Pernar
> Skype: Stefan.Pernar
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


From stefan.pernar at gmail.com  Mon Jan 12 03:37:04 2009
From: stefan.pernar at gmail.com (Stefan Pernar)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 11:37:04 +0800
Subject: [ExI] Humanity+ as self guided evolution
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0901111853k2c5af9a6w4a46d21c930bfea1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <944947f20901111002i432eac9l8777ec1af2c84885@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0901111853k2c5af9a6w4a46d21c930bfea1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <944947f20901111937p76259e42la3565db7cb03e623@mail.gmail.com>

Look at it this way: natural selection determines what can exist. Once you
make this your objective in the sense of ensuring continued existence and
include others by modifying the objective to ensure continued co-existence
so it does not lead to contradictions with Kant's categorical imperative you
get the basis for a truly beautiful concept.

The reason being that having the objective of ensuring not only the
existence of the self but at the same time the coexistence with the other it
becomes inseparable from compassion. For in doing so you effectively equate
the self with the other. This will oblige you to love the other just like
you love yourself. You will need to be fair because you want to be fair to
yourself. Altruism becomes egoism with the two concepts becoming meaningless
when following this principle for giving yourself up for others becomes the
same as giving yourself up for yourself and vice versa.

The reason why compassion evolved as the central theme of all world
religions during the time of the axial age (see Karen Armstrong's book The
Great Transformation) is because of its evolutionary advantageous
properties. Why then shouldn't we make use of this and follow evolutionary
concepts in guiding our self modification? What other rational alternatives
are there?

Another good read is Evolution's Arrow by John Stewart (
http://users.tpg.com.au/users/jes999/)

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 10:53 AM, Emlyn <emlynoregan at gmail.com> wrote:

> Bzzt, no! Next contestant please...
>
> Seriously, do any of us here think that consideration of natural
> selection should be the guide in transhuman self modification?
>
> I guess in some degenerate sense, bits of natural selection always
> apply. But what does this mean if we are living indefinite lifespans?
> Or if we are reproducing by creating new genomes from scratch rather
> than the genetic lucky dip we run now? Not so much I think.
>
> And really, do we want natural selection involved here? It has always
> seemed to me that the whole point of transhumanism was to get away
> from nature's brutal bootstrap, and take charge of the processes of
> life, so that we can substitute in our own arbitrarily evolved but
> much loved values; love, compassion, fairness, altruism, opportunity!
>
> Invoking natural selection in the same breath as transhumanism just
> implies the bad days of eugenics. No.
>
> --
> Emlyn
>
> http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
> http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting
> (http://emlynoregan.com is currently down, see
>
> http://point7.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/scarcity-mode-emlynoregancom-is-down/
> )
>
> 2009/1/12 Stefan Pernar <stefan.pernar at gmail.com>:
> > Hi everyone,
> >
> > The quote "The only constant is change" is commonly attributed to the
> Greek
> > philosopher Heraclitus and embodies the insight that nothing ever stays
> the
> > same. Charles Darwin later amended this idea to include the concept of a
> > qualifying retention mechanism favoring certain changes over others by
> > weeding out those changes that are detrimental to our ancestors
> existence:
> > natural selection.
> >
> > We have reached a point in our history when very soon technology will
> enable
> > us to make virtually arbitrary changes to ourself. The mechanism of
> natural
> > selection however will continue to apply. Taking the evolutionary
> > perspective into account in our decision process concerning what changes
> to
> > make and which ones to discard will be an existential guide in helping us
> to
> > affect a positive transcension by preempting natural selection. For only
> > that which does not run against the plan of evolution has a chance to
> > continue to be.
> >
> > I am running for the board of directors of Humanity+. Do vote for me if
> you
> > want to see this philosophy represented on the board =>
> > http://www.transhumanism.org/index.php/WTA/more/hbrdc/
> >
> > Thank you for your time and all the best for the new year of 2009.
> >
> > Stefan Pernar
> > --
> > Stefan Pernar
> > Skype: Stefan.Pernar
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>



-- 
Stefan Pernar
Skype: Stefan.Pernar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090112/396200fd/attachment.html>

From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Mon Jan 12 08:56:45 2009
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 01:56:45 -0700
Subject: [ExI] why not start up a Mexico based cryonics company?
Message-ID: <2d6187670901120056m175f79fme7a66edc00151b84@mail.gmail.com>

Why not start up a Mexico based cryonics company owned and primarily run by
Americans?  I would think the start up costs in terms of buying property,
equipment, paying employees, etc., would be much much lower than in the US
or Canada.  And at this point I think Mexico is politically stable enough
that this proposition could be seriously considered.

If KrioRus can charge a mere nine grand for a neuro, than a Mexico based
cryonics company might be able to charge the same or even less.  Anyone here
think a "CryoMex" is a good idea?

And please try to contain yourselves when it comes to the tequila dewar and
cryonics siesta jokes.  My friends at the Immortality Institute just could
not contain themselves...

John Grigg
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090112/64218565/attachment.html>

From eschatoon at gmail.com  Mon Jan 12 12:22:39 2009
From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 13:22:39 +0100
Subject: [ExI] why not start up a Mexico based cryonics company?
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670901120056m175f79fme7a66edc00151b84@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2d6187670901120056m175f79fme7a66edc00151b84@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90901120422v70d53f51h29efaabadb6d58@mail.gmail.com>

Why not indeed. The main factor for the feasibility of the idea is
Mexican applicable legal rules and regulations.

G.

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 9:56 AM, John Grigg <possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Why not start up a Mexico based cryonics company owned and primarily run by
> Americans?  I would think the start up costs in terms of buying property,
> equipment, paying employees, etc., would be much much lower than in the US
> or Canada.  And at this point I think Mexico is politically stable enough
> that this proposition could be seriously considered.
>
> If KrioRus can charge a mere nine grand for a neuro, than a Mexico based
> cryonics company might be able to charge the same or even less.  Anyone here
> think a "CryoMex" is a good idea?
>
> And please try to contain yourselves when it comes to the tequila dewar and
> cryonics siesta jokes.  My friends at the Immortality Institute just could
> not contain themselves...
>
> John Grigg
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>



-- 
Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
aka Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Mon Jan 12 12:39:57 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 23:09:57 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Unversity begins (6.001 Structure and Interpretation of
	Computer Programs, MIT OpenCourseWare)
Message-ID: <710b78fc0901120439q4bc4e4c5xc1c6925ea08a8a3@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all,

This is a follow up to the email asking people if they were interested
in a free online run through of the first year computer science course
6.001 Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs from MIT
OpenCourseWare, during semester 1 this year. Just to recap, I offered
to "run" it, ie: organise a group of like-minded people to all do it
at the same time, and lend some technical support and what not as
required.

Enough people have replied (enthusiastically!) that it's a go.

Tentative calendar follows the MIT academic year, and starts on Feb 2.

I've started a google group to coordinate things. If you are
interested in doing the course, please join the group and say hi.
http://groups.google.com.au/group/unversity-chat

Also there is some info there about how I'm thinking of running
things. Note the possibly cringeworthy name Unversity. I'm trying to
hint that my long term aim is higher than just running one course...

The policy will be to do as much in public as possible. It makes
things a lot easier (easier to organise free resources and no privacy
issues), it will make collaboration during the course easier, and will
serve as a useful record for running future courses. If you want to do
the course but don't want people to know that you are, I suggest using
a pseudonym up front.

Anyway, all are welcome to join the chat group, whether to
subsequently do the course, or just to ride along and see what's
happening, I don't mind. We may very well organise a separate group
specifically for people doing 6.001, but that can be decided on list.

Feel free to forward this message anywhere you like. If you think you
know someone who might enjoy doing this course in concert with others,
please let them know. There is no limit on the number of people who
can do this, and I think the more we have the better, so please feel
free to spam everyone you know, even to the detriment of your social
relationships. Or, if you have ideas about online groups who might be
interested, and don't want to do the communicating, let me know and
I'll do it.

Thanks very much for putting up with my cross posting, and I'll see
some of you on the new group.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting
(http://emlynoregan.com is currently down, see
http://point7.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/scarcity-mode-emlynoregancom-is-down/)


From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Jan 13 06:00:41 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:00:41 -0800
Subject: [ExI] reconsidering the Orion's Arm timeline...
In-Reply-To: <bf3acbfc0901101514m27a9ed3euf0bb6b3c511f32ae@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2d6187670901051922h30a245bei3de91cc7dc09c279@mail.gmail.com>
	<d1988d2d0901061649u328bb6f3vd691c5e8e3061579@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30901062129u5c57b7a0wafbe885ab1a1672f@mail.gmail.com>
	<4968F12B.8010607@mac.com>
	<bf3acbfc0901101514m27a9ed3euf0bb6b3c511f32ae@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <496C2E09.8080707@mac.com>

Dagon Gmail wrote:
> People, people... any topic of morality or good or evil only has  any 
> meaning in very narrow
> margins. Most people cant apply consistency in ethical matters and the 
> average civilian
> out there can be duped into being a concentration camp overseer for 
> airmiles. Moral
> discussions about anything beyond same sex marriage or vatgrown 
> hamburgers drag out
> for ages. As such most discussion about what would be prudent for the 
> baselines are not
> equitable or like talking down to infants. Yu cannot let baselines 
> decide on any of this -
> or decide for them. Let`s stop this sillyness. Lets for now call this 
> the "extropia tragedy"
> and close this ... Lets hope we will never be faced to arbitrage over 
> the existentials of
> baselines. We are not mature enough to do so yet.

My take is I hope we are mature enough that those of us who are ready 
and willing to move forward and especially those of us able to do or 
fund the needed scitech, simply do so without worrying overly much about 
  naysayers.  I hope we take advantage of the freedom to do so and never 
settle for anything less.

- samantha




From dagonweb at gmail.com  Tue Jan 13 06:12:07 2009
From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 07:12:07 +0100
Subject: [ExI] reconsidering the Orion's Arm timeline...
In-Reply-To: <496C2E09.8080707@mac.com>
References: <2d6187670901051922h30a245bei3de91cc7dc09c279@mail.gmail.com>
	<d1988d2d0901061649u328bb6f3vd691c5e8e3061579@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30901062129u5c57b7a0wafbe885ab1a1672f@mail.gmail.com>
	<4968F12B.8010607@mac.com>
	<bf3acbfc0901101514m27a9ed3euf0bb6b3c511f32ae@mail.gmail.com>
	<496C2E09.8080707@mac.com>
Message-ID: <bf3acbfc0901122212o5d6037cbv79519541bd3cd89e@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:00 AM, samantha <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> Dagon Gmail wrote:
>
>> People, people... any topic of morality or good or evil only has  any
>> meaning in very narrow
>> margins. Most people cant apply consistency in ethical matters and the
>> average civilian
>> out there can be duped into being a concentration camp overseer for
>> airmiles. Moral
>> discussions about anything beyond same sex marriage or vatgrown hamburgers
>> drag out
>> for ages. As such most discussion about what would be prudent for the
>> baselines are not
>> equitable or like talking down to infants. Yu cannot let baselines decide
>> on any of this -
>> or decide for them. Let`s stop this sillyness. Lets for now call this the
>> "extropia tragedy"
>> and close this ... Lets hope we will never be faced to arbitrage over the
>> existentials of
>> baselines. We are not mature enough to do so yet.
>>
>
> My take is I hope we are mature enough that those of us who are ready and
> willing to move forward and especially those of us able to do or fund the
> needed scitech, simply do so without worrying overly much about  naysayers.
>  I hope we take advantage of the freedom to do so and never settle for
> anything less. - samantha


Of course we can get there. H+ is about attaining what fully parses, yes?
But we aren't there yet.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090113/09838a2b/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Jan 13 06:19:33 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:19:33 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Humanity+ as self guided evolution
In-Reply-To: <944947f20901111002i432eac9l8777ec1af2c84885@mail.gmail.com>
References: <944947f20901111002i432eac9l8777ec1af2c84885@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <496C3275.4090501@mac.com>

Stefan Pernar wrote:
> Hi everyone,
> 
> The quote "The only constant is change" is commonly attributed to the 
> Greek philosopher Heraclitus and embodies the insight that nothing ever 
> stays the same. Charles Darwin later amended this idea to include the 
> concept of a qualifying retention mechanism favoring certain changes 
> over others by weeding out those changes that are detrimental to our 
> ancestors existence: natural selection.
> 
> We have reached a point in our history when very soon technology will 
> enable us to make virtually arbitrary changes to ourself. The mechanism 
> of natural selection however will continue to apply. Taking the 
> evolutionary perspective into account in our decision process concerning 
> what changes to make and which ones to discard will be an existential 
> guide in helping us to affect a positive transcension by preempting 
> natural selection. For only that which does not run against the plan of 
> evolution has a chance to continue to be.
> 

What exactly is this "plan of evolution"?  The "plan" of natural 
evolution is simply to produce that which successfully reproduces and 
not a lot else.   That isn't very much of a plan.  The "plan" the goals 
we develop for ourselves will be much more ambitious.  Mere reproduction 
is a means, not an end.  If intelligent beings become immortal then the 
continued existence and evolution of mind is guaranteed even without 
much in the way of reproduction.

> I am running for the board of directors of Humanity+. Do vote for me if 
> you want to see this philosophy represented on the board =>

Where is this philosophy further expounded?  It seems to simplistic as 
stated above.  What I read in your candidate statement is much better. 
Perhaps it would be best not to shorten it like the above.  You allude 
to good and important things.  It would be good to not be misunderstood 
by saying too little.

- samantha


From sjatkins at mac.com  Tue Jan 13 06:45:28 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 22:45:28 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Humanity+ as self guided evolution
In-Reply-To: <944947f20901111937p76259e42la3565db7cb03e623@mail.gmail.com>
References: <944947f20901111002i432eac9l8777ec1af2c84885@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0901111853k2c5af9a6w4a46d21c930bfea1@mail.gmail.com>
	<944947f20901111937p76259e42la3565db7cb03e623@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <496C3888.7080100@mac.com>

Stefan Pernar wrote:
> Look at it this way: natural selection determines what can exist. Once 
> you make this your objective in the sense of ensuring continued 
> existence and include others by modifying the objective to ensure 
> continued co-existence so it does not lead to contradictions with Kant's 
> categorical imperative you get the basis for a truly beautiful concept.

Unfortunately I don't think well enough of Kant for this to add to your 
position. I will put to you questions I put to myself quite often.

> 
> The reason being that having the objective of ensuring not only the 
> existence of the self but at the same time the coexistence with the 
> other it becomes inseparable from compassion. 

Which others?  All others?  Sounds nice but why, exactly?  Why, not as 
some "Categorical Imperative", but as actually demonstrably in the 
rational self-interest of intelligent beings.  Nothing less will win the 
point.

> For in doing so you 
> effectively equate the self with the other. 

While I have had similar thought/ideas/intuitions, that is not enough. 
You need to show the clear irresistible good of this for all intelligent 
beings involved, even those of quite different levels of intelligence.

>This will oblige you to love 
> the other just like you love yourself. 

What for precisely?  What if that other is not remotely my equal in say 
intelligence as would for instance be the case between an unaugmented 
human and an advanced AGI?  Why would the AGI equate the human with 
itself and care as much for this empirically inferior intelligent being 
as it does for itself?  What would it gain by this lovely philosophy? 
What if the human cannot substantially add its being or help it achieve 
its values at all?  In that case why should it care for the human as it 
does itself?


> You will need to be fair because 
> you want to be fair to yourself. 

What is fair?  Is it fair to myself to forego my own growth and 
development in order to enhance the long evolution of say, the 
cockroach?  Is it fair for our advancement to all the great values we 
perceive to be at the mercy of those who do not see it or at the mercy 
of those who are ruled by delusion, irrationality and profound 
ignorance?  Is it fair to forego my own work and values to devote all or 
even a large percentage of my time and resources to those of my own kind 
who have not as much as I or who are unfortunate or simply less 
ambitious or however their circumstances  make them "needy" relative to 
me?   What is the relative weight of the values that are your own to the 
values of others that may not be so much like your own or even 
comprehending of your own?


>Altruism becomes egoism with the two 
> concepts becoming meaningless when following this principle for giving 
> yourself up for others becomes the same as giving yourself up for 
> yourself and vice versa.

There is no easily discerned meaning in "giving yourself up for 
yourself".  There is only value and whether you go toward value or away 
from it.  If you give up greater values for lesser ones that is clearly 
a net loss.

> 
> The reason why compassion evolved as the central theme of all world 
> religions during the time of the axial age (see Karen Armstrong's book 
> The Great Transformation) is because of its evolutionary advantageous 
> properties. 

Compassion is one of many things that came about as evolutionarily 
advantageous.  Understanding and empathy and compassion enough for 
cooperation among roughly equal range intelligent beings is obviously a 
very helpful and good thing for all concerned.  But it should not be 
hastily reified into the end and be all good you seem to be pushing it 
as.  It is not so clear and indeed did not evolve that we have this 
compassion for those beings radically less intelligent than ourselves 
(or even some that are much closer).  Thus it is not clear that this 
generalizes to a universe of radically disparate intelligences.


>Why then shouldn't we make use of this and follow 
> evolutionary concepts in guiding our self modification? What other 
> rational alternatives are there?
>

Rationally we have to avoid selection bias and cherry picking that which 
we find most intuitively appealing.


- samantha


From stefan.pernar at gmail.com  Tue Jan 13 10:23:03 2009
From: stefan.pernar at gmail.com (Stefan Pernar)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 18:23:03 +0800
Subject: [ExI] Humanity+ as self guided evolution
In-Reply-To: <496C3888.7080100@mac.com>
References: <944947f20901111002i432eac9l8777ec1af2c84885@mail.gmail.com>
	<710b78fc0901111853k2c5af9a6w4a46d21c930bfea1@mail.gmail.com>
	<944947f20901111937p76259e42la3565db7cb03e623@mail.gmail.com>
	<496C3888.7080100@mac.com>
Message-ID: <944947f20901130223s75f007b9lf5e66609d4032db4@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 2:45 PM, samantha <sjatkins at mac.com> wrote:

> Stefan Pernar wrote:
>
>> Look at it this way: natural selection determines what can exist. Once you
>> make this your objective in the sense of ensuring continued existence and
>> include others by modifying the objective to ensure continued co-existence
>> so it does not lead to contradictions with Kant's categorical imperative you
>> get the basis for a truly beautiful concept.
>>
>
> Unfortunately I don't think well enough of Kant for this to add to your
> position. I will put to you questions I put to myself quite often.
>

Schopenhauer had a critique that I guess you would agree with in terms of
the categorical imperative. In essence we was not thrilled about the
rational aspect of the CI and argued that compassion is the cause of most
selflessness/morality and rightly so. The evolutionary perspective
reconciles the two quite nicely actually (more below).



 For in doing so you effectively equate the self with the other.
>

While I have had similar thought/ideas/intuitions, that is not enough. You
> need to show the clear irresistible good of this for all intelligent beings
> involved, even those of quite different levels of intelligence.
>

Totally agree and I do so in my paper on practical benevolence that I am
currently expanding into a book sized work. You can find it under
http://rationalmorality.info/wp-content/uploads/2008/07/Practical-Benevolence-2008-07-15.pdf


 This will oblige you to love the other just like you love yourself.
>

What for precisely?  What if that other is not remotely my equal in say
> intelligence as would for instance be the case between an unaugmented human
> and an advanced AGI?  Why would the AGI equate the human with itself and
> care as much for this empirically inferior intelligent being as it does for
> itself?  What would it gain by this lovely philosophy? What if the human
> cannot substantially add its being or help it achieve its values at all?  In
> that case why should it care for the human as it does itself?
>

That becomes a design issue of AIs. In my thinking creating a single AI as a
deus ex machina will be very dangerous. In line with my philosophy I prefer
an evolutionary approach that I briefly explain at
http://rationalmorality.info/wiki/index.php?title=Guido_Borner_Project

 You will need to be fair because you want to be fair to yourself.
>

What is fair?  Is it fair to myself to forego my own growth and

 [snip]

Fairness is explained in the paper as the rational compromise that I explain
under 2.5 Respect for Others in my paper.


>
>
>  Altruism becomes egoism with the two concepts becoming meaningless when
>> following this principle for giving yourself up for others becomes the same
>> as giving yourself up for yourself and vice versa.
>>
>
> There is no easily discerned meaning in "giving yourself up for yourself".
>  There is only value and whether you go toward value or away from it.  If
> you give up greater values for lesser ones that is clearly a net loss.
>

See 2.3 resolving moral paradoxes


> The reason why compassion evolved as the central theme of all world
> religions during the time of the axial age (see Karen Armstrong's book The
> Great Transformation) is because of its evolutionary advantageous
> properties.
>

Compassion is one of many things that came about as evolutionarily
> advantageous.  Understanding and empathy and compassion enough for
> cooperation among roughly equal range intelligent beings is obviously a very
> helpful and good thing for all concerned.  But it should not be hastily
> reified into the end and be all good you seem to be pushing it as.  It is
> not so clear and indeed did not evolve that we have this compassion for
> those beings radically less intelligent than ourselves (or even some that
> are much closer).  Thus it is not clear that this generalizes to a universe
> of radically disparate intelligences.
>

Seeing us as a transitional form that will continue to evolve I see no
reason why we can not expand our circle of compassion further. My first
upgrade might very well be a combination of compassion 2.3 and empathy 3.4 -
metaphorically speaking - it wont be as straight forward of course.


>
>
>  Why then shouldn't we make use of this and follow evolutionary concepts in
>> guiding our self modification? What other rational alternatives are there?
>>
>>
> Rationally we have to avoid selection bias and cherry picking that which we
> find most intuitively appealing.
>

Absolutely and that is what I am trying to avoid by creating a rational
philosophy of morality - precisely to be rational about what is good.

-- 
Stefan Pernar
Skype: Stefan.Pernar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090113/9e58664e/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jan 13 16:05:21 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 10:05:21 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Animation of a Broken Space Elevator
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090113100232.024586b0@satx.rr.com>

This looks to be rather old, but might be of interest:

http://gassend.net/spaceelevator/breaks/index.html



From pjmanney at gmail.com  Wed Jan 14 00:46:53 2009
From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 16:46:53 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Christopher Heward
Message-ID: <29666bf30901131646m3c00ffd7j776d3a66a3ce78b@mail.gmail.com>

Richard Leis just forwarded this to me:

Chris Heward, Feb. 18, 1949 - January 10, 2009

Christopher Bruce Heward, Ph.D., passed away today 4:17, p.m.

He will be sorely missed.

Services

Not a "service", per se, but simply a gathering of family and friends, will
occur on Sunday, January 18th, between 11 a.m. and 4 p.m., at the Heward
house - 3844 Menlo Street, Mesa,
85215<http://maps.google.com/maps?q=3844+Menlo+street%2C+85215>

Anyone who loved Chris is welcome, and in fact encouraged, to attend.
Another more formal service is scheduled for later in the month. When I have
more details about it I will post them here.
https://www.qtask.com/oldqwiki.cgi?mode=previewSynd&uuid=367NUKQT1W7DSFLGTJ2WYN8X15

Videos

Some videos to remember him by:

Chris on Menopause <http://www.empowher.com/users/dr-christopher-b-heward>

Chris on Longevity
Science<http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/people/Chris-Heward/>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090113/f953e980/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Jan 14 01:41:17 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 19:41:17 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Christopher Heward
In-Reply-To: <29666bf30901131646m3c00ffd7j776d3a66a3ce78b@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <29666bf30901131646m3c00ffd7j776d3a66a3ce78b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090113193919.026c0008@satx.rr.com>

At 04:46 PM 1/13/2009 -0800, PJ wrote:

>Chris Heward, Feb. 18, 1949 - January 10, 2009
>
><http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/people/Chris-Heward/>Chris on 
>Longevity Science

He's good, eh! Very engaging and smart. What a shame he's dead. Sigh.

Damien Broderick 



From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Wed Jan 14 03:38:30 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 14:08:30 +1030
Subject: [ExI] A sokal-style hoax
Message-ID: <710b78fc0901131938l4bf7dd13o7cd59bdf43b822b0@mail.gmail.com>

A sokal-style hoax on australian conservative magazine Quadrant

http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090106-How-Quadrant-swallowed-a-giant-hoax-.html

It's a bit aussie, and a bit political, so not really on topic, but
it's, you know, sciencey, sorta.

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - downshifting and ranting
(http://emlynoregan.com is currently down, see
http://point7.wordpress.com/2009/01/02/scarcity-mode-emlynoregancom-is-down/)


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Jan 14 05:28:16 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 23:28:16 -0600
Subject: [ExI] A Sokal-style hoax
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0901131938l4bf7dd13o7cd59bdf43b822b0@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <710b78fc0901131938l4bf7dd13o7cd59bdf43b822b0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090113232733.025eec48@satx.rr.com>

At 02:08 PM 1/14/2009 +1030, Emmers wrote:

>A sokal-style hoax on australian conservative magazine Quadrant
>
>http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090106-How-Quadrant-swallowed-a-giant-hoax-.html

The QUADRANT reply is not without merit:

<http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2009/01/this-hoax-a-dud-cheque>

Damien Broderick 



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Jan 14 08:50:32 2009
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 00:50:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Energy in motion
Message-ID: <347429.3004.qm@web65611.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- On Thu, 12/18/08, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:

> <http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2447/dark-energy-expands-and-contracts-our-universe>
 
> 
> Dark energy expands and contracts universe
>
> The new research provides the "strongest evidence yet
> that dark energy is the cosmological constant,"
> Vikhlinin said, being similar to the energy of empty space.
> "Or in other words, that 'nothing weighs
> something'."

So according to the cosmologists, this ineffable force called dark energy constitutes some 70% of the mass of the universe. While the atoms that *materialism* touts as the end all be all of our existence accounts for a mere 4% of the mass of the universe. But even that 4% is seeming quite insubstantial these days.

Since Rutherford bounced helium nuclei off of gold foil, particle physicists have known that most of the mass of an atom consists of almost entirely of the protons and neutrons in its nucleus. Yet protons and neutrons themselves are each composed of three quarks that together make up a mere 5% of the mass total of the proton or neutron. Where does the rest of the mass come from? From the frenzied relativistic motion of gluons that don't have any rest mass at all.   

http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/quarks-gluons-and-corroborating-emc2/2008/11/21/1226770694126.html

Quoting from the article:

"The odd thing is this: the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of quarks is only five per cent [of the mass of a proton]. Where, therefore, is the missing 95 per cent?

The answer, according to the study published in the US journal Science on Thursday, comes from the energy from the movements and interactions of quarks and gluons."

So now lets summarize:

The cosmologists are saying that only 4% of the mass of the universe is normal matter. And the particle physicists say that of that only 5% of normal matter is actually "stuff" that has rest mass. So approximately 0.002% of the mass of the universe is actual substantial quark-based matter. So materialism as a philosophy, based as it is on a trace contaminant in a universe that is composed almost entirely of dark energy, dark matter, and the kinetic energy of massless particles, might be a violation of the Copernican principle.  


Stuart LaForge










      


From msd001 at gmail.com  Wed Jan 14 14:49:12 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 09:49:12 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Energy in motion
In-Reply-To: <347429.3004.qm@web65611.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
References: <347429.3004.qm@web65611.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240901140649r76800cf8jd7d4dfe2f1872948@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 3:50 AM, The Avantguardian
<avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:
> So now lets summarize:
>
> The cosmologists are saying that only 4% of the mass of the universe is normal matter. And the particle physicists say that of that only 5% of normal matter is actually "stuff" that has rest mass. So approximately 0.002% of the mass of the universe is actual substantial quark-based matter. So materialism as a philosophy, based as it is on a trace contaminant in a universe that is composed almost entirely of dark energy, dark matter, and the kinetic energy of massless particles, might be a violation of the Copernican principle.

Lets take as a given the commonly understood physically real world.
Now consider how number and configuration of chemicals necessary for a
single human to be aware of it all.  One kilogram of brain (our best
approximation of computronium so far) is able to navigate through the
flotsam and jetsam of the rest of the universe.  Pretty amazing.


From mlatorra at gmail.com  Wed Jan 14 18:11:36 2009
From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 11:11:36 -0700
Subject: [ExI] A Sokal-style hoax
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090113232733.025eec48@satx.rr.com>
References: <710b78fc0901131938l4bf7dd13o7cd59bdf43b822b0@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090113232733.025eec48@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <9ff585550901141011v43fe4946ka8b4b526d6ebf7f1@mail.gmail.com>

Yes, the reply has merit indeed. If I may quote its concluding paragraph
(for the convenience of those of you who won't bother to click through the
link Damien provided and read to the end):

"At most, all that 'Gould' has done is misrepresent her own identity and the
direct involvement of the CSIRO in some of the research projects she cites.
She has done no more than demonstrate that, through the subterfuge of a
bogus email address, an invented identity and CV, plus a series of deceitful
email conversations with an editor, a writer can get an article published
that contains a small amount of information that was not true, but which is
otherwise entirely plausible. Rather than a hoax, her article is simply a
piece of fraudulent journalism submitted to *Quadrant* under false
pretences. It is no more a hoax than a dud cheque."

Regards,
Mike LaTorra

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 10:28 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>wrote:

> At 02:08 PM 1/14/2009 +1030, Emmers wrote:
>
> A sokal-style hoax on australian conservative magazine Quadrant
>>
>>
>> http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090106-How-Quadrant-swallowed-a-giant-hoax-.html
>>
>
> The QUADRANT reply is not without merit:
>
> <http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2009/01/this-hoax-a-dud-cheque>
>
> Damien Broderick
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090114/9a401775/attachment.html>

From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com  Wed Jan 14 18:22:14 2009
From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:22:14 -0800
Subject: [ExI] A Sokal-style hoax
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090113232733.025eec48@satx.rr.com>
References: <710b78fc0901131938l4bf7dd13o7cd59bdf43b822b0@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090113232733.025eec48@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <9b9887c80901141022j5700e2c6le2252bc28e94206d@mail.gmail.com>

it is a new day:  http://dipdive.com/  check this out and pass around in
preparation for the Happening on 20 january in DC

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 9:28 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>wrote:

> At 02:08 PM 1/14/2009 +1030, Emmers wrote:
>
>  A sokal-style hoax on australian conservative magazine Quadrant
>>
>>
>> http://www.crikey.com.au/Politics/20090106-How-Quadrant-swallowed-a-giant-hoax-.html
>>
>
> The QUADRANT reply is not without merit:
>
> <http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/qed/2009/01/this-hoax-a-dud-cheque>
>
> Damien Broderick
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
Ilsa Bartlett
Institute for Rewiring the System
2951 Derby Street #139
Berkeley, CA 94705
www.hotlux.com/angel.htm
www.grassroutestravel.com

"Don't ever get so big or important that you can not hear and listen to
every other person."
-John Coltrane
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090114/c44bac39/attachment.html>

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Jan 14 18:31:40 2009
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 10:31:40 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Energy in motion
Message-ID: <908818.78188.qm@web65609.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- On Wed, 1/14/09, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Lets take as a given the commonly understood physically
> real world.
> Now consider how number and configuration of chemicals
> necessary for a
> single human to be aware of it all.  One kilogram of brain
> (our best
> approximation of computronium so far) is able to navigate
> through the
> flotsam and jetsam of the rest of the universe.  Pretty
> amazing.

Agreed. Our brains navigate through the flotsam and jetsam and give it the appearence of solid reality. BTW there was a typo in my math. The .002% should be either .002 *or* .2% but not both. However I believe my point and yours still stand.

Stuart LaForge

"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo




      


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Jan 14 19:06:25 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 13:06:25 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Allah's genetic and social engineering
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090114130429.0232ba50@satx.rr.com>

<http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/14/opinion/14goldberg-1.html?pagewanted=2&th&emc=th>

Nizar Rayyan expressed much the same sentiment the night we spoke in 
2006. We had been discussing a passage of the Koran that suggests 
that God turns a group of impious Jews into apes and pigs. The 
Hezbollah leader, Hassan Nasrallah, among others, has deployed this 
passage in his speeches. Once, at a rally in Beirut, he said: "We 
shout in the face of the killers of prophets and the descendants of 
the apes and pigs: We hope we will not see you next year. The shout 
remains, 'Death to Israel!'"

Mr. Rayyan said that, technically, Mr. Nasrallah was mistaken. "Allah 
changed disobedient Jews into apes and pigs, it is true, but he 
specifically said these apes and pigs did not have the ability to 
reproduce," Mr. Rayyan said. "So it is not literally true that Jews 
today are descended from pigs and apes, but it is true that some of 
the ancestors of Jews were transformed into pigs and apes, and it is 
true that Allah continually makes the Jews pay for their crimes in 
many different ways. They are a cursed people."



From scerir at libero.it  Wed Jan 14 19:01:27 2009
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 20:01:27 +0100
Subject: [ExI] A sokal-style hoax
References: <710b78fc0901131938l4bf7dd13o7cd59bdf43b822b0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <000701c9767a$81574e40$9ce61e97@archimede>

See also the strange case of M.S. El Naschie
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2008/11/the_case_of_m_s_el_naschie.html#more
http://golem.ph.utexas.edu/category/2008/11/the_case_of_m_s_el_naschie_con.html
http://www.nature.com/news/2008/081126/full/456432a.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/2008/12/nature_on_el_naschie.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pontiff/2008/11/letter_to_an_older_mathematici.php



From jay.dugger at gmail.com  Mon Jan 12 09:50:55 2009
From: jay.dugger at gmail.com (jay.dugger at gmail.com)
Date: Mon, 12 Jan 2009 03:50:55 -0600
Subject: [ExI] why not start up a Mexico based cryonics company?
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670901120056m175f79fme7a66edc00151b84@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2d6187670901120056m175f79fme7a66edc00151b84@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5366105b0901120150v545b0a5audc5988cbb63edc64@mail.gmail.com>

1. I do not think Mexico sufficently stable for a such a long-term project.

2. What laws apply to importing human remains to Mexico?

3. What legal status will cryo-preserved remains have in Mexico? Will
they count as anatomical gifts?

-- 
Jay Dugger
(314) 766-4426
http://hellofrom.blogspot.com


From micheals at msu.edu  Tue Jan 13 12:20:13 2009
From: micheals at msu.edu (sam micheal)
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2009 07:20:13 -0500
Subject: [ExI] call for help
Message-ID: <496C86FD.30202@msu.edu>

Back in '95 when I did my paper research on AI and machine 
consciousness, I arrived at a model that does not differ extensively 
from the one in my recent paper on ACOMAS which can be found at:   
http://www.msu.edu/~micheal/acomas/

Now, after careful reconsideration, I arrive at the same two problems I 
faced at that time: specifications of 'visualization register' and 
'register feed'.

Consider the qualities of human capability of those things: we can 
dream; we can imagine; we have an emotional 'pool' which drives many of 
our thoughts and behaviors. But by design, ACOMAS will have no emotions 
nor emotional capability (at this point, I refuse to give that construct 
emotional capability in order to understand how much emotions drive us - 
and - in order to 'free' that construct from our emotional 'failings' 
(again, our predisposition to let our emotions 'drive' us and control 
our behaviors)). Night dreaming (as opposed to day dreams) is a 
wonderful illustration of our visualization capabilities. Part of our 
brains manufacture the dreams we experience. Another part experiences 
it. But it's as if we have a 3D projector in our minds that show us a 3D 
movie. This is an extraordinary capability not easily modeled or simulated.

The main reason it is difficult is because it is not easily amenable to 
conventional symbol conceptualization. The rest of the ACOMAS model is 
fairly amenable symbolically (because the components are symbol based) 
except for the senses .. So in this context, the senses and 
visualization register will have to be modeled and simulated on a 
completely different kind of technology (not based on conventional 
symbols). A virtual reality is not what I'm talking about (even though 
there may be similarities between VR and dreams). A "3D retina" is 
closer to what I'm asking for. Any objective specific constructive 
suggestions will be greatly appreciated.

Now back to 'register feed'. What I mean by this is the following. We, 
as human beings, have no problem to identify our motivations or why we 
"think a particular thought" - because we have feelings, desires, and 
dreams. ACOMAS will have no such benefits/attributes. Any feelings, 
desires, or dreams - we will "program" into ACOMAS. (How sad.) We could 
randomly feed its registers with random "thoughts" or "action plans" but 
that would not be very helpful to ACOMAS or the project. It would 
probably also invalidate its identity and confuse the hell out of it! 
(Imagine if someone had the power to fill your mind with random thoughts 
- it would probably drive you insane!)

So, what do we put in its registers? The prioritized goal list? That 
again defeats the purpose of the device. The purpose of ACOMAS is to see 
if "it can be done" (and how it might be done). If we give it this 
incredible capacity for original thought - yet put repetitive or 
unoriginal thoughts 'in its mind', we doom the device to be merely a 
plaything or curiosity. I contend both the visualization register and 
feed for registers can be creatively constructed so that machine 
capacity is not less than human capacity. (If I can scientifically 
imagine it, it can be built.)

So, if any of you dear readers have any objective specific constructive 
suggestions for visualization register or register feed (that is not 
emotion based), please don't hesitate to post on the forum or write to 
me directly.

Sam Micheal


From pjmanney at gmail.com  Wed Jan 14 23:54:04 2009
From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 15:54:04 -0800
Subject: [ExI] why not start up a Mexico based cryonics company?
In-Reply-To: <5366105b0901120150v545b0a5audc5988cbb63edc64@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2d6187670901120056m175f79fme7a66edc00151b84@mail.gmail.com>
	<5366105b0901120150v545b0a5audc5988cbb63edc64@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <29666bf30901141554i4ad4cc6cs8ea436bf72b6fcb3@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:50 AM, <jay.dugger at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> 1. I do not think Mexico sufficently stable for a such a long-term project.
>
> 2. What laws apply to importing human remains to Mexico?
>
> 3. What legal status will cryo-preserved remains have in Mexico? Will
> they count as anatomical gifts?

and

4.  The cryo-preserved are the most convenient kidnap hostages
imaginable.  After you receive a badly thawed finger by courier,
they'll demand, "Pay us the ransom or we pull the plug!" or if you'd
prefer, "Electricity?!  We don't need no stinkin' electricity!"

I'd sooner put the cryo-preserved in a blender and hit "puree".

PJ


From sjatkins at mac.com  Thu Jan 15 00:14:15 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Samantha=A0_Atkins?=)
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2009 16:14:15 -0800
Subject: [ExI] why not start up a Mexico based cryonics company?
In-Reply-To: <29666bf30901141554i4ad4cc6cs8ea436bf72b6fcb3@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2d6187670901120056m175f79fme7a66edc00151b84@mail.gmail.com>
	<5366105b0901120150v545b0a5audc5988cbb63edc64@mail.gmail.com>
	<29666bf30901141554i4ad4cc6cs8ea436bf72b6fcb3@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CC2990FC-4AFD-42A7-99D4-BE16BDBE12F7@mac.com>


On Jan 14, 2009, at 3:54 PM, PJ Manney wrote:

> On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:50 AM, <jay.dugger at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 1. I do not think Mexico sufficently stable for a such a long-term  
>> project.

At the moment I don't consider the US all that long term stable either.

>>
>> 2. What laws apply to importing human remains to Mexico?

What "remains"?

>>
>> 3. What legal status will cryo-preserved remains have in Mexico? Will
>> they count as anatomical gifts?
>

How are they considered in the US today?

> and
>
> 4.  The cryo-preserved are the most convenient kidnap hostages
> imaginable.  After you receive a badly thawed finger by courier,
> they'll demand, "Pay us the ransom or we pull the plug!" or if you'd
> prefer, "Electricity?!  We don't need no stinkin' electricity!"
>

Even for those who really only think of the cryo-preserved as  
"remains" this would be at least desecration of the dead.   For many  
of our families this unfortunately would not be a very workable  
extortion.  Some would even pay hooligans to stage the kidnapping.   
They are even more likely to as the legal status of the cryo-preserved  
improves perhaps tying up more of the estate.  But I agree it is an  
extra vulnerability.

- samantha


From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Jan 15 10:53:29 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 10:53:29 +0000
Subject: [ExI] call for help
In-Reply-To: <496C86FD.30202@msu.edu>
References: <496C86FD.30202@msu.edu>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0901150253s29e11b73oc10fc51fa1581ed2@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 12:20 PM, sam micheal wrote:
<snip>
> So, if any of you dear readers have any objective specific constructive
> suggestions for visualization register or register feed (that is not emotion
> based), please don't hesitate to post on the forum or write to me directly.
>


You could try posting your question to the AGI list, which is probably
more suited to technical AI questions.
Here: <http://www.agiri.org/wiki/AGI_Discussion>

You can read the archives before joining, to see what they discuss.

But the AGI list is hardly moderated at all so you do get some strange
postings there from time to time.  ;)


BillK


From estropico at gmail.com  Thu Jan 15 16:45:48 2009
From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 16:45:48 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Introducing the Italian Cryonics Association
Message-ID: <4eaaa0d90901150845jeef9bcax4e3d92a6c7fbf601@mail.gmail.com>

I have the pleasure of announcing the birth of the Italian Cryonics
Association (Associazione Italiana Crionica - AIC) and of its sister
organisation, the Life-extension Research Group (Gruppo di Ricerca per
l'Estensione della Vita - GREV).

The main goals of AIC and GREV are to promote cryonics and
life-extension in Italy, and to set up a support network for Italian
cryonicists, something that at present is completely non-existent.

I'd like to point out that my involvement with both organisations is
indirect, and that I've been asked to send this announcement to this
and other lists due to my familiarity with English. Both organisations
have emerged from the cryonics list I have been running for the last
couple of years and from the old Italian Cryonics Society, which,
unlike AIC, wasn't much more than a website (which I hosted on
Estropico.com: http://www.estropico.com/id298.htm )

For further info, questions, etc, please see the AIC's contact page:
http://i-lifegroup.org/index.php/membri-aic.html

AIC and GREV's homepage: http://i-lifegroup.org/
AIC's mailing list: http://it.groups.yahoo.com/group/crionica-ibernazione

Cheers,
Fabio


From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Jan 15 19:53:21 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 19:53:21 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Botnets Are Making Smarter Zombie PCs
Message-ID: <ee50357e0901151153l4f9fa4e1wfe9fb5cb28f2272d@mail.gmail.com>

<http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/01/setback-in-war-on-spam-botnets-are.html>

Zombie PCs are getting smarter and harder to track down, according to
security software vendor Commtouch. This is a early hint of a world
with more advanced artificial intelligence (AI). The AI could be used
for good or bad and could themselves be good or bad.
New zombies now routinely request new IP addresses from their ISPs, so
anti-spam software that works by blocking spam based the originating
IP addresses can no longer effectively halt them, the company said in
its most recent quarterly Internet Threats Trend Report.
-------------------------

Also see:
<http://www.darkreading.com/security/vulnerabilities/showArticle.jhtml?articleID=212900543>

 It's official: Storm is back. The notorious botnet that ballooned
into one of the biggest botnets ever and then basically disappeared
for months last year is rebuilding -- with all-new malware and a more
sustainable architecture less likely to be infiltrated and shut down.

Steven Adair, a researcher with Shadowserver, says the HTTP method
being used now by Storm also helps mask which machines are bots and
which are command and control servers. "It makes it harder to figure
out which systems are actually just victim systems and which are
actually motherships systems that are used for the real command and
control," he says.

Another improvement with Storm is its encryption: Stewart says the
botnet is now using strong encryption rather than the weak 64-bit RSA
encryption it used before that researchers were able to crack it. "Now
they are using AES encryption for the initial exchange, and then using
RSA 1024 for the rest of traffic," Stewart says. Storm is still using
the increasingly popular and stealthy fast-flux architecture to help
keep it up and running.
------------------

And
<http://www.heise-online.co.uk/security/Report-2-5-million-PCs-infected-with-Conficker-worm--/news/112416>

According to F-Secure, there are already almost 2.5 million PCs
infected with the Conficker worm, also known as Downadup. Since the
worm has the ability to download new versions of itself, it is
expected that the infection could spread much further. The new code is
downloaded from domain names generated with a complex algorithm,
making it hard to predict what domains will be used to spread the
worms updates.
------------



AI is advancing in an unexpected direction and it's probably in your PC already.

Better get your tin-foil helmet on, Damien!

BillK


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jan 15 20:06:40 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 14:06:40 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Botnets Are Making Smarter Zombie PCs
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0901151153l4f9fa4e1wfe9fb5cb28f2272d@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <ee50357e0901151153l4f9fa4e1wfe9fb5cb28f2272d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090115140448.0227d8a0@satx.rr.com>

At 07:53 PM 1/15/2009 +0000, BillK wrote:

>AI is advancing in an unexpected direction and it's probably in your 
>PC already.

O Brave New World that hath such sonsuvbitches contaminating it.

>Better get your tin-foil helmet on, Damien!

I never leave home without it!

Damien Broderick




From micheals at msu.edu  Thu Jan 15 05:56:07 2009
From: micheals at msu.edu (sam micheal)
Date: Thu, 15 Jan 2009 00:56:07 -0500
Subject: [ExI] visualization register candidates
Message-ID: <496ECFF7.7020803@msu.edu>

ACOMAS Simulation Run 246 Log:

Observing the display of visualization register: noticed many geometric 
shapes "flying about" in seeming random orbits -- forming and deforming 
seemingly at random (could not detect any obvious pattern in formation, 
kind of object, nor orbit). Noted the register log and it seemed to be 
working on goal 7 -- trying to determine sub-goals that might fulfill 
the primary. No speech output. Robotic arms stationary. Stereoscopic 
cameras stationary. At 7:47PM EST, all output blanked. The visualization 
register display blanked, the register log stopped scrolling. No 
observable activity. Checked the power feeds and UPS -- all seemed 
working fine. Looked in the cameras. Tapped on them lightly saying "Are 
you okay?" Nothing. No response. A few moments later -- speech output: 
(a somewhat husky voice) "I'm fine Dave. How are you?" On the 
visualization register display was an image of 2001's Hal's "red eye" 
camera. I chuckled and replied "That's not funny Hal."

 

I've gotten some flak from an astrosciences-forum-reader about ACOMAS. 
We exchanged a few personal insults and "ended" the "discussion" by 
disagreeing to disagree. (Not even agreeing how we were to disagree.) I 
asked them to post their "decomposition of consciousness" but they 
refused. They were content to promulgate the mystical perspective 
insisting that "I knew nothing about consciousness" and that "I was 
doomed to chaotic failure". I firmly and adamantly disagree. I propose 
the exchange above is not only actually possible -- it's probable -- and 
not programmed -- but spontaneous.

 

At the moment, I have only two viable candidates for visualization 
register: restricted VR or "pixel cube". Restricted in such a way that a 
complete "server version" of VR is not required. (We don't need to 
implement a complete server VR such as Perfect World with its obviously 
imperfect laws of physics; we can satisfy the design requirements with a 
limited subset of VR capability and domain.) A limited space and limited 
set of objects with one exception -- capacity to make additional objects 
from the given set. The pixel cube could be implemented by a 3D array of 
bits: on or off. The array would have to be enormous. I suggest 
something like one million cubed. This would allow the representation of 
objects in 3D. For instance, visualizing a coffee cup or chair would be 
"child's play" because those objects should be in ACOMA's local 
environment. (Note the drop of "S" for the non-simulated version.) 
Again, the content of the registers, at any one moment, is something 
that still must be addressed. I have hopes that is both approachable and 
feasible.

 

Sam Micheal, 15/JAN/2009

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090115/e0352855/attachment.html>

From eschatoon at gmail.com  Fri Jan 16 15:15:49 2009
From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 16:15:49 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Transhumanist Edge
Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90901160715r41332af0oac82d0c3f35a8ec0@mail.gmail.com>

http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/the_transhumanist_edge/

Some critics prefer to hide their delusional heads in the sand, but it
is becoming evident that transhumanist ideas are accepted by more and
more of the leading thinkers and doers of our age. For a little
reality check, naysayers should read some of the quotes below, which
do not come from a transhumanist mailing list but from some of the
most influential and respected scientists of our times.

The Times - Science minds reveal vision of life, the universe and
everything reports: the discussion website edge.org has asked some of
the world's finest minds the question: "What will change everything?".
The answers, which include contributions from authors, philosophers
and other intellectuals, as well as from researchers, cover all manner
of predictions of "game-changing scientific ideas and developments"
that they expect to live to see? There are predictions of accelerated
human evolution, engineered super-intelligent brains, greatly extended
lifespans and even a kind of victory of death.

The question is simple: "WHAT WILL CHANGE EVERYTHING? What
game-changing scientific ideas and developments do you expect to live
to see?"

The answers are collected at Edge's World Question Center. Some well
known transhumanist thinkers like Nick Bostrom and Aubrey de Grey have
been interviewed and submitted great entries. But the most interesting
thing is the definitely transhumanist tone of many, many of the most
interesting answers. It is, I think, evident that transhumanist memes
are spreading from the original small groups of visionary thinkers to
mainstream science, business and media.

George Dvorsky has listed some of the most interesting transhumanist
answers in his blog post Edge.org answers overwhelmingly
transhumanist. My own favorites (besides Nick and Aubrey) in George's
selection:

Gregory Paul: The first major upgrade of the human brain and the mind
it generates since the pleistocene: "...it should be possible to use
alternative, technological means to produce conscious thought. Efforts
are already underway to replace damaged brain parts such as the
hippocampus with hypercomputer implants. If and when the initial
medical imperative is met, elective implants will undoubtedly be used
to upgrade normal brain operations. As the fast evolving devices
improve they will begin to outperform the original brain, it will make
less and less sense to continue to do one's thinking in the old
biological clunker, and formerly human minds will become entirely
artificial as they move into ultra sophisticated, dispersed robot
systems. Assuming that the above developments are practical,
technological progress will not merely improve the human condition, it
should replace it. The conceit that humans in anything like their
present form will be able to compete in a world of immortal superminds
with unlimited intellectual capacity is na?ve; there simply will not
be much for people to do. Do not for a minute imagine a society of
crude Terminators, or Datas that crave to be as human as possible.
Future robots will be devices of subtle sophistication and sensitivity
that will expose humans as the big brained apes we truly are. The
logic predicts that most humans will choose to become robotic."

Freeman Dyson: "Radiotelepathy", the direct communication of feelings
and thought from brain to brain: "These physical tools would make
possible the practice of "Radiotelepathy", the direct communication of
feelings and thoughts from brain to brain. The ancient myth of
telepathy, induced by occult and spooky action-at-a-distance, would be
replaced by a prosaic kind of telepathy induced by physical tools. To
make radiotelepathy possible, we have only to invent two new
technologies, first the direct conversion of neural signals into radio
signals and vice versa, and second the placement of microscopic radio
transmitters and receivers within the tissue of a living brain. I do
not have any idea of the way these inventions will be achieved, but I
expect them to emerge from the rapid progress of neurology before the
twenty-first century is over."

Frank J. Tipler: But we shall all be changed: "Humanity will see,
before I die, the "Singularity," the day when we finally create a
human level artificial intelligence. This involves considering the
physics advances that will be required to create the computer that is
capable of running a strong AI program." Another interesting quote
from Tipler's answer: "I remain cautiously optimistic that we will
develop the ultimate technology described above, and transfer it with
faltering hands to our ultimate successors, the AI's and the human
downloads, who will be thus enabled to expand outward into
interstellar space, engulf the universe, and live forever."

David Eagleman: Silicon immortality: downloading consciousness into
computers: "While medicine will advance in the next half century, we
are not on a crash-course for achieving immortality by curing all
disease. Bodies simply wear down with use. We are on a crash-course,
however, with technologies that let us store unthinkable amounts of
data and run gargantuan simulations. Therefore, well before we
understand how brains work, we will find ourselves able to digitally
copy the brain's structure and able to download the conscious mind
into a computer." Also: "If the computational hypothesis of brain
function is correct, it suggests that an exact replica of your brain
will hold your memories, will act and think and feel the way you do,
and will experience your consciousness?irrespective of whether it's
built out of biological cells, Tinkertoys, or zeros and ones? Assuming
we haven't missed anything important in our theoretical frameworks,
then we have the problem cornered and I expect to see the downloading
of consciousness come to fruition in my lifetime."

-- 
Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
aka Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco


From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Fri Jan 16 09:08:46 2009
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry Colvin)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 04:08:46 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ExI] Fw: UFO UpDate: Cloaking Throws An Electromagnetic Curveball
Message-ID: <29001076.1232096927235.JavaMail.root@elwamui-royal.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

-----Forwarded Message-----
>
>Source: ars technica.com - New York, New York, USA
>
> http://tinyurl.com/a6ufcv
>
>January 15, 2009
>
>
>New Cloaking Surface Throws An Electromagnetic Curveball
>By Tim De Chant
>
>For centuries, humans have dreamed of fading into the 
>background. Hunters have long wished to vanish into their 
>surroundings, and these days, awkward moments at parties can 
>evoke similar desires. But the ability to truly disappear is 
>still only found in tales spun by writers and filmmakers, as 
>cloaking has remained the stuff of fantasy and science fiction. 
>Thanks to some pioneering researchers, however, cloaking has 
>moved one step closer to reality.
>
>Six scientists have built a sophisticated metamaterial that 
>literally bends electromagnetic waves, according to a new paper 
>published Thursday in the journal Science. Ruopeng Liu and 
>Chunlin Li, researchers in David R. Smith's lab at Duke 
>University, along with three other colleagues, assembled more 
>than 10,000 specially designed pieces to form a mat 20 inches 
>long and four inches wide. When finished, the yellow pad sucked 
>microwaves in and spit them out-with a curve.
>
>To test their new invention, researchers first beamed microwaves 
>at a flat, mirrored surface. The waves behaved as they should, 
>bouncing off at a predictable angle. Next they shot it at a bump 
>in a mirrored surface. The microwaves bounced and scattered, 
>carefully obeying the laws of physics. Then the scientists laid 
>their yellow mat over the bump. And the wave ignored the bump-or 
>so it seemed. After reflecting off the curved surface, the 
>radiation veered downward and continued along a flat surface-
>trajectory. The mat had cloaked the bump.
>
>[Graphic]
>
>Aside from starring in the Harry Potter series and countless 
>Star Trek incarnations, cloaking has been a very serious and 
>very active research area in the past few years. In May 2006, 
>two scientists proposed active cloaking devices based on 
>superlenses, but their contribution at the time was only 
>theoretical. The reality of superlenses hasn't been as 
>promising, but in October of that same year, Smith and his 
>colleagues presented a cloaking breakthrough-the ability to 
>cloak an object from a specific microwave frequency. More papers 
>followed, and the science progressed rapidly. But then last 
>December, a new theoretical study published gave researchers a 
>harsh reality check-cloaking at multiple frequencies may very 
>well be impossible, the authors said. As the number of cloaked 
>frequencies increases, the efficacy of the device or material 
>decreases. It's a classic tradeoff, they implied, and one not 
>likely to be overcome.
>
>Liu and Li's new research, though, seems to poke a giant hole in 
>that last paper. Their new metamaterial masks not one tiny slice 
>of the microwave spectrum, but a relatively large swath of it, 
>from 13 to 16 gigahertz. Liu and Li built off the results of 
>Smith's 2006 paper to create the new cloak, but this time used 
>more powerful algorithm to help them fabricate the metamaterial. 
>The formula dictated where each of the over 10,000 pieces in the 
>structure should be placed to achieve the desired effect.
>
>"The difference between the original device and the latest model 
>is like night and day," Smith said in a press release. While the 
>earlier, more limited device took Smith and his team four months 
>to build, the new, more capable cloak was ready in only nine 
>days.
>
>Smith compares the mat's cloaking effect to a mirage. "You see 
>what looks like water hovering over the road, but it is in 
>reality a reflection from the sky," he said. "The mirage you see 
>is cloaking the road below."
>
>While you won't be able to don a fancy blanket and duck out of 
>work early any time soon, the new metamaterial proves that one 
>surface can cloak many frequencies. Three gigahertz is certainly 
>a far cry from the 350,000 GHz that make up the visible 
>spectrum, but at least it's a step in the right direction. 
>
>
>Science, 2008. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1166949
>
>
>[Thanks to Frank Fields for the lead]


Terry W. Colvin
Ladphrao (Bangkok), Thailand
Pran Buri (Hua Hin), Thailand


From kanzure at gmail.com  Fri Jan 16 16:04:28 2009
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:04:28 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Annotation, Interpretation and Management of Mutations
Message-ID: <55ad6af70901160804k404856fei12e85fbe33408248@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Christopher Baker bmcmutations:gmail.com <owner-chemistry at ccl.net>
Date: Thu, Jan 15, 2009 at 10:36 PM
Subject: CCL: BMC Bioinformatics Special Issue: CALL FOR PAPERS - Mutations
To: "Bryan Bishop" <kanzure at gmail.com>

Sent to CCL by: "Christopher  Baker" [bmcmutations:gmail.com]
=================================================
 BMC Bioinformatics Special Issue: CALL FOR PAPERS
=================================================

A special issue of the Journal will showcase original
papers that address themes relevant to the:

Annotation, Interpretation and Management of Mutations

 http://www.ebi.ac.uk/Rebholz-srv/aimm.html

Mutations play a key role in the understanding of genetic mechanisms
and complex diseases. A number of bioinformatics initiatives gather
and store mutational relevant information (OMIM, GAD, HapMap, 1000
Genomces project, COSMIC, UniProtKb, PDB), but the challenge for
data integration initiatives is to facilitate the interpretion
of phenotypic / impact changes induced by the mutations. Solutions are
required in the domains of:

 (i) text mining - for the identification of phenotypic / impact
    annotations,

 (ii) data warehousing and machine learning  to allow better
     integration of mutation relevant information into a bioinformatics
     infrastructure (e.g., ontologies, workflows, databases, machine
     learning techniques). Synergistic use of these technologies should
     facilitate inferences of knowledge from sequence to structure to
     function and to phenotypes. Authors may also focus on methods for
     the prediction of phenotypic effects induced by mutations,
     infrastructure to support clinical decision processes involving
     mutations as well as the management and aggregation of mutations
     with annotations from different digital or text resources.

Suggested themes (but not limited to):

-  Mutation Databases and Metadata: Design, Content, Accuracy.

-  Extraction of mutations and annotations from literature

-  Methods and systems for predicting the impacts of Mutations

-  Mutation Data Integration, Phenotype Ontologies, Semantic Support
  and Reuse



Published manuscripts will include a clear and motivating description
of the specific challenge and biological context that they address
and a lucid illustration of the proposed solution.



Article-processing charges:
=======================

Please note that the standard BMC Bioinformatics publication
processing fees apply to submissions to this special issue.
Please refer to http://www.biomedcentral.com/bmcbioinformatics/ifora/
for further information.



Important Dates:
===============
 Submissions open: Dec 25th 2008

 Submissions due*: February 14th 2009

 Revised manuscript submitted: March 31st 2009


Submissions:
============

Pre-submission enquiries and variations to the deadlines above may be
made in consultation with the Special Issue Editor bakerc*|*unb.ca


* Author instructions can be obtained by sending an email to
bmcmutations*|*gmail.com an automated reply will sent and
complete submissions should also be sent to
bmcmutations*|*gmail.com but with AIMM in the subject line.


Special Issue Editors:
======================

Christopher J. O. Baker - University of New Brunswick, Canada
Dietrich Rebholz-Schuhmann, European Bioinformatics Institute, UK



-= This is automatically added to each message by the mailing script =-
To recover the email address of the author of the message, please change
the strange characters on the top line to the @ sign. You can also
look up the X-Original-From: line in the mail header.

E-mail to subscribers: CHEMISTRY at ccl.net or use:
     http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message

E-mail to administrators: CHEMISTRY-REQUEST at ccl.net or use
     http://www.ccl.net/cgi-bin/ccl/send_ccl_message

Subscribe/Unsubscribe:
     http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/sub_unsub.shtml

Before posting, check wait time at: http://www.ccl.net

Job: http://www.ccl.net/jobs
Conferences: http://server.ccl.net/chemistry/announcements/conferences/

Search Messages: http://www.ccl.net/htdig  (login: ccl, Password: search)

If your mail bounces from CCL with 5.7.1 error, check:
     http://www.ccl.net/spammers.txt

RTFI: http://www.ccl.net/chemistry/aboutccl/instructions/


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Jan 16 21:59:06 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:59:06 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The "war on science" is over. Now what?
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090116155706.022b0c50@satx.rr.com>

http://www.slate.com/id/2208789/

Science
Mission Accomplished

The "war on science" is over. Now what?
By Chris Mooney

The "war on science" is over. Or at least it is in the sense that I 
originally meant the phrase: We're at the close of the Bush 
administration's years of attacks on the integrity of scientific 
informationits biased editing of technical documents, muzzling of 
government researchers, and shameless dispersal of faulty ideas about 
issues like global warming.

The attacks generated dramatic outrage and considerable activism from 
the traditionally staid science community and the sympathy of 
politicians like Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama. So it's no great 
surprise to find the president-elect setting out to restore dignity 
to the role of science in government. George W. Bush didn't even 
bother to name his White House science adviser until well into his 
first term, and his appointee (physicist John Marburger) didn't win 
Senate confirmation until October 2001. In contrast, Obama has 
already named a Nobel laureate physicist (Steven Chu) to head the 
Energy Department and a climate specialist and prominent leader of 
the scientific community, Harvard's John Holdren, as his 
Cabinet-level science adviser.

Scientists are ecstatic about these developments and about Obama's 
recent promise to listen to them "even when it's 
inconvenientespecially when it's inconvenient." But it would be the 
gravest of errors for researchers to simply return victorious to 
their labs and fall back on a time-honored stance of political 
detachment. If the war on science is over, we're now entering the 
postwar phase of reconstructionthe scientific equivalent of 
nation-building. The Bush science controversies were just one 
manifestation of a deeper and long-standing gulf between the science 
community and the broader American public, one with roots stretching 
back to our indigenous tradition of anti-intellectualism (as so 
famously described by historian Richard Hofstadter in his classic 
work from 1963) and Yankee distrust of expertise and authority. So 
this is certainly no time for complacency. Scientists, with the 
support of the administration, should now be setting out to win over 
the hearts and minds of the American public, creating a stronger 
edifice of trust and understanding to help ensure that conflict 
doesn't come raging back again.

Consider: While scientists may be resurgent in Washington, their 
world as a whole remains distant and bizarre to most Americans. Only 
18 percent of us know a scientist personally, according to a 2005 
survey (subscription required), and when asked in 2007 to name 
scientific "role models," the results were dismal. Forty-four percent 
of Americans couldn't come up with a name at all, and among those few 
who did, their top answers were either not scientists or not alive: 
Bill Gates, Al Gore, Albert Einstein.

This bad news comes at a time when we need an appreciation of 
sciencean understanding of its fundamental role in sound policymaking 
and the future of the economymore than ever: to help solve our 
intertwined climate and energy problems, to bolster our long-term 
technological competitiveness, and to prepare our society for the 
coming controversies that research in fields like genetics and 
neuroscience stands ready to unleash. Instead, the communication gap 
between scientists and ordinary Americans has brought about (or 
helped to perpetuate) a number of home-grown anti-science 
pathologies. A seemingly immovable core of Americans don't believe in 
evolution and think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old, nearly 
half of us, according to polling data. Americans are also more likely 
to reject the Big Bang theory than are people from other countries. 
Indeed, the public has become polarized about the nature of reality 
itself: College-educated Democrats are now more than twice as likely 
as college-educated Republicans to believe that global warming is 
real and human-caused.

To help heal such disconnects, the president-electas "communicator in 
chief"will surely be saying as much about science as he can. But as 
we all know, he has a few other minor matters to worry about. 
Scientists and those who care about sciencejournalists, policy 
analysts, and concerned citizensmust do the rest.

The problems they face are difficult and deeply rooted but not 
necessarily unfixable. Fortunately, most Americans aren't actively 
anti-science; the problem, rather, is that the science world is 
either alien to them or something they rarely think about. (Most 
people derive their image of scientists from popular culture: nerdy, 
socially awkward, and often responsible for nearly destroying the 
world.) To succeed in the postwar landscape, science communicators 
must find better ways of talking to people on their own terms and 
making research meaningful in their lives.

There will be hurdles along the way. Americans are repeatedly being 
told that science represents an assault on their core beliefs and 
values. Battles over the relationship between science and religion 
are newly resurgent, driven in part by the "New Atheism" of Sam 
Harris, Richard Dawkins, and others, and in part by culture warriors 
on the other side of the aisle who continue to see evolution as a 
stalking horse for irreligion. If science is ordinarily distant from 
the lives of ordinary Americans, unending science-religion conflicts 
can make it seem hostile.

Another hurdle involves not the message but the medium: Newspaper 
science sections have shrunken or vanished across the nation; on 
television, real science news has long been struggling, and CNN has 
let go of its entire science and technology unit. The science 
blogosphere is, of course, boomingbut as media scholars like Matthew 
Nisbet of American University have observed, the blogs are unlikely 
to reach very many citizens who aren't already science lovers. And 
what would be the effect if the blogs did get to a wider audience? 
The semi-finalists in the recent "Best Science Blog" of 2008 contest 
were a site that questions the reality of global warming and PZ 
Myers' Pharyngulaground zero for a potent mix of pro-evolution 
advocacy and uncompromising criticism of religion.

And so we find ourselves in a paradoxical situation. Science is more 
important than eversomething our new president fully recognizes. Yet 
for most Americans, science is probably becoming more distant, not 
less; it's harder to locate and identify, and it's often more 
aggressive toward their core beliefs. In this context, scientists 
certainly shouldn't retreat to their labs. Rather, they should reach 
out to the public like never before. There's a lot of work to do.

Chris Mooney is the author of The Republican War on Science and 
co-author (with Sheril Kirshenbaum) of the forthcoming Unscientific 
America: How Scientific Illiteracy Threatens Our Future.
  



From sjatkins at mac.com  Fri Jan 16 23:18:28 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Samantha=A0_Atkins?=)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:18:28 -0800
Subject: [ExI] The "war on science" is over. Now what?
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090116155706.022b0c50@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090116155706.022b0c50@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <159FFA63-D72E-4214-B976-E3C3EB3A4C9E@mac.com>


On Jan 16, 2009, at 1:59 PM, Damien Broderick wrote:

> http://www.slate.com/id/2208789/
>
> Science
> Mission Accomplished
>
> The "war on science" is over. Now what?
> By Chris Mooney
>
> The "war on science" is over. Or at least it is in the sense that I  
> originally meant the phrase: We're at the close of the Bush  
> administration's years of attacks on the integrity of scientific  
> informationits biased editing of technical documents, muzzling of  
> government researchers, and shameless dispersal of faulty ideas  
> about issues like global warming.
>

Actually judging by Obama appointees and their known statements,  the  
new administration is every bit as biased on this subject howbeit in  
the opposite direction.

- samantha



From benboc at lineone.net  Fri Jan 16 23:48:58 2009
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 23:48:58 +0000
Subject: [ExI]  Energy in motion
In-Reply-To: <mailman.46.1232049204.12759.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.46.1232049204.12759.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <49711CEA.1030706@lineone.net>



The Avantguardian <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

> --- On Thu, 12/18/08, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> 
>>> <http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/2447/dark-energy-expands-and-contracts-our-universe>
>>> 
> 
>>> 
>>> Dark energy expands and contracts universe
>>> 
>>> The new research provides the "strongest evidence yet that dark
>>> energy is the cosmological constant," Vikhlinin said, being
>>> similar to the energy of empty space. "Or in other words, that
>>> 'nothing weighs something'."
> 
> So according to the cosmologists, this ineffable force called dark
> energy constitutes some 70% of the mass of the universe. While the
> atoms that *materialism* touts as the end all be all of our existence
> accounts for a mere 4% of the mass of the universe. But even that 4%
> is seeming quite insubstantial these days.
> 
> Since Rutherford bounced helium nuclei off of gold foil, particle
> physicists have known that most of the mass of an atom consists of
> almost entirely of the protons and neutrons in its nucleus. Yet
> protons and neutrons themselves are each composed of three quarks
> that together make up a mere 5% of the mass total of the proton or
> neutron. Where does the rest of the mass come from? From the frenzied
> relativistic motion of gluons that don't have any rest mass at all.
> 
> 
> http://www.theage.com.au/news/technology/quarks-gluons-and-corroborating-emc2/2008/11/21/1226770694126.html
> 
> 
> Quoting from the article:
> 
> "The odd thing is this: the mass of gluons is zero and the mass of
> quarks is only five per cent [of the mass of a proton]. Where,
> therefore, is the missing 95 per cent?
> 
> The answer, according to the study published in the US journal
> Science on Thursday, comes from the energy from the movements and
> interactions of quarks and gluons."
> 
> So now lets summarize:
> 
> The cosmologists are saying that only 4% of the mass of the universe
> is normal matter. And the particle physicists say that of that only
> 5% of normal matter is actually "stuff" that has rest mass. So
> approximately 0.002% of the mass of the universe is actual
> substantial quark-based matter. So materialism as a philosophy, based
> as it is on a trace contaminant in a universe that is composed almost
> entirely of dark energy, dark matter, and the kinetic energy of
> massless particles, might be a violation of the Copernican principle.
> 
> 



I think you're taking the term "materialism" the wrong way.  Materialism
doesn't deny the existence of energy (matter is energy after all). It 
just asserts that there is no place for supernatural explanations for 
phenomena like minds.
Dark energy isn't supernatural.  It might or might not actually exist,
but it's not outside of physics.

Ben Zaiboc


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Jan 17 01:28:31 2009
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 17:28:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Energy in motion
In-Reply-To: <49711CEA.1030706@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <12971.77738.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- On Fri, 1/16/09, ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:
 
> I think you're taking the term "materialism"
> the wrong way.  Materialism
> doesn't deny the existence of energy (matter is energy
> after all). It just asserts that there is no place for
> supernatural explanations for phenomena like minds.

Perhaps you are conflating materialism and broader physicalism.
According to Wikipedia: 

"The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter, and is considered a form of physicalism. Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance."

My point is simply that by the current physical theories, the universe is almost totally immaterial. While matter is a form of energy, it is but one form of energy, and if the boffins are right, it is a very minor component of the universe. So the "substance" of existence is actually energy. And the philosophy should properly be called ergonism. This does not imply that minds are supernatural, but it does imply that reductionism won't be able to explain consciousness.

> Dark energy isn't supernatural.  It might or might not
> actually exist,
> but it's not outside of physics.

If dark energy doesn't actually exist, but it's still in physics then physics is wrong.

How do you define supernatural? Something can be epistemically supernatural and ontically natural. But nothing can be ontically supernatural. That is to say that one can always attribute lightning bolts to an angry Zeus if one wants but that doesn't really place them outside of nature. But if angels were somehow shown to exist, they would be perfectly natural and physics would need to account for them.

Stuart LaForge

"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo



      


From mlatorra at gmail.com  Sat Jan 17 04:25:50 2009
From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 21:25:50 -0700
Subject: [ExI] NEW SCIENTIST: Our world may be a giant hologram
Message-ID: <9ff585550901162025g1c42193ck8579ad34ec521f7f@mail.gmail.com>

Our world may be a giant hologram
15 January 2009 by Marcus Chown

DRIVING through the countryside south of Hanover, it would be easy to miss
the GEO600 experiment. From the outside, it doesn't look much: in the corner
of a field stands an assortment of boxy temporary buildings, from which two
long trenches emerge, at a right angle to each other, covered with
corrugated iron. Underneath the metal sheets, however, lies a detector that
stretches for 600 metres.

For the past seven years, this German set-up has been looking for
gravitational waves - ripples in space-time thrown off by super-dense
astronomical objects such as neutron stars and black holes. GEO600 has not
detected any gravitational waves so far, but it might inadvertently have
made the most important discovery in physics for half a century.
For many months, the GEO600 team-members had been scratching their heads
over inexplicable noise that is plaguing their giant detector. Then, out of
the blue, a researcher approached them with an explanation. In fact, he had
even predicted the noise before he knew they were detecting it. According to
Craig Hogan, a physicist at the Fermilab particle physics lab in Batavia,
Illinois, GEO600 has stumbled upon the fundamental limit of space-time - the
point where space-time stops behaving like the smooth continuum Einstein
described and instead dissolves into "grains", just as a newspaper
photograph dissolves into dots as you zoom in. "It looks like GEO600 is
being buffeted by the microscopic quantum convulsions of space-time," says
Hogan.

If this doesn't blow your socks off, then Hogan, who has just been appointed
director of Fermilab's Center for Particle Astrophysics, has an even bigger
shock in store: "If the GEO600 result is what I suspect it is, then we are
all living in a giant cosmic hologram."

The idea that we live in a hologram probably sounds absurd, but it is a
natural extension of our best understanding of black holes, and something
with a pretty firm theoretical footing. It has also been surprisingly
helpful for physicists wrestling with theories of how the universe works at
its most fundamental level.

The holograms you find on credit cards and banknotes are etched on
two-dimensional plastic films. When light bounces off them, it recreates the
appearance of a 3D image. In the 1990s physicists Leonard Susskind and Nobel
prizewinner Gerard 't Hooft suggested that the same principle might apply to
the universe as a whole. Our everyday experience might itself be a
holographic projection of physical processes that take place on a distant,
2D surface.

The "holographic principle" challenges our sensibilities. It seems hard to
believe that you woke up, brushed your teeth and are reading this article
because of something happening on the boundary of the universe. No one knows
what it would mean for us if we really do live in a hologram, yet theorists
have good reasons to believe that many aspects of the holographic principle
are true.

Susskind and 't Hooft's remarkable idea was motivated by ground-breaking
work on black holes by Jacob Bekenstein of the Hebrew University of
Jerusalem in Israel and Stephen Hawking at the University of Cambridge. In
the mid-1970s, Hawking showed that black holes are in fact not entirely
"black" but instead slowly emit radiation, which causes them to evaporate
and eventually disappear. This poses a puzzle, because Hawking radiation
does not convey any information about the interior of a black hole. When the
black hole has gone, all the information about the star that collapsed to
form the black hole has vanished, which contradicts the widely affirmed
principle that information cannot be destroyed. This is known as the black
hole information paradox.

Bekenstein's work provided an important clue in resolving the paradox. He
discovered that a black hole's entropy - which is synonymous with its
information content - is proportional to the surface area of its event
horizon. This is the theoretical surface that cloaks the black hole and
marks the point of no return for infalling matter or light. Theorists have
since shown that microscopic quantum ripples at the event horizon can encode
the information inside the black hole, so there is no mysterious information
loss as the black hole evaporates.
Crucially, this provides a deep physical insight: the 3D information about a
precursor star can be completely encoded in the 2D horizon of the subsequent
black hole - not unlike the 3D image of an object being encoded in a 2D
hologram. Susskind and 't Hooft extended the insight to the universe as a
whole on the basis that the cosmos has a horizon too - the boundary from
beyond which light has not had time to reach us in the 13.7-billion-year
lifespan of the universe. What's more, work by several string theorists,
most notably Juan Maldacena at the Institute for Advanced Study in
Princeton, has confirmed that the idea is on the right track. He showed that
the physics inside a hypothetical universe with five dimensions and shaped
like a Pringle is the same as the physics taking place on the
four-dimensional boundary. ...

...continues at:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126911.300-our-world-may-be-a-giant-hologram.html
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090116/d5b62af5/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sat Jan 17 04:25:14 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 20:25:14 -0800
Subject: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
Message-ID: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike>

 
Please, am I the only one who is hearing major alarm bells when I see
stories like this one?
 
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480248,00.html
 
Particularly this comment:
 
...the DYFS did not tell police why the children were taken from their
parents...
 
So now the family services people have somehow been granted power that
exceeds the local police, so that they can take children from their families
without having to explain why?  To anyone?  Even the police?  If the family
shot the DYFS people dead in their tracks while in the home, would it not be
perfectly justifiable homicide?  If the DYFS people were there apparently
without a warrant (and if a warrant, based on what authority?) with the
intention of taking the children, would they not be kidnappers, and richly
deserve to find themselves on the receiving end of deadly force?  Where did
this authority come from?  Is there some mysterious crypto-constitution
granting these powers?   What is the role of the police in this case?   
 
In the egregious and shameful Yearning For Zion Ranch case, I also saw the
local police and sheriff standing around wondering what they were supposed
to do.   In my thinking, if the family services decided they needed to take
children from any family (even a rotten one), they should be required to
work thru the local police, with a tall stack of justifying paperwork with
some really big signatures on every page. 
 
Do explain, someone who knows.
 
spike
 
 
 
 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090116/f5169b46/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sat Jan 17 06:26:47 2009
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 23:26:47 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Transhumanist Edge
In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90901160715r41332af0oac82d0c3f35a8ec0@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <1fa8c3b90901160715r41332af0oac82d0c3f35a8ec0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1232174013_118949@s5.cableone.net>

At 08:15 AM 1/16/2009, you wrote:
>http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/the_transhumanist_edge/

snip

>Frank J. Tipler: But we shall all be changed: "Humanity will see,
>before I die, the "Singularity," the day when we finally create a
>human level artificial intelligence.

Silly Frank.  If we get to the singularity before he dies, there is 
no reason he should die.

Surely human level AIs will upgrade into near gods.  Such beings 
should be able to deal with minor problems like saving humans from death.

Keith

"It's good news week.
Someone's found a way to give,
The rotting dead a will to live,
Go on and never die."



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sat Jan 17 06:57:44 2009
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 22:57:44 -0800
Subject: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
References: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike>
Message-ID: <CC30FA4AE6D544EEABE2336F370C5851@patrick4ezsk6z>

From: spike
To: 'ExI chat list'
Sent: Friday, January 16, 2009 8:25 PM

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480248,00.html

> Particularly this comment:

> ...the DYFS did not tell police why the children were taken from their 
> parents...

It's simply staggering.

I thought about what Jack Nicholson (playing George Hanson in _Easy Rider_) 
said:  "This used to be a helluva country."

Olga 



From femmechakra at yahoo.ca  Sat Jan 17 08:00:52 2009
From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:00:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] I'm not sure I understand..please enlighten me.
Message-ID: <935519.73245.qm@web110415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>

Why exactly is Transhumanism becoming the new "humanity" link? I thought that religion had no play within the realm of Transhumanism.  

Just looking for valid opinion
Anna:)

PS..You can't change the main function of a computer.


   


      __________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your favourite sites. Download it now at
http://ca.toolbar.yahoo.com.


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Jan 17 08:56:27 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 19:56:27 +1100
Subject: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
In-Reply-To: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike>
References: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30901170056t58f9b412rbf8487c6676df3b8@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/17 spike <spike66 at att.net>:

> So now the family services people have somehow been granted power that
> exceeds the local police, so that they can take children from their families
> without having to explain why?  To anyone?  Even the police?  If the family
> shot the DYFS people dead in their tracks while in the home, would it not be
> perfectly justifiable homicide?  If the DYFS people were there apparently
> without a warrant (and if a warrant, based on what authority?) with the
> intention of taking the children, would they not be kidnappers, and richly
> deserve to find themselves on the receiving end of deadly force?  Where did
> this authority come from?  Is there some mysterious crypto-constitution
> granting these powers?   What is the role of the police in this case?

Presumably the DYFS would have left and come back with police backup
if there had been any resistance, since without the power to do this
they would be completely ineffectual. But the real question is, who is
best placed to decide if there is sufficient evidence of child abuse
to warrant removal of the child from the family?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Sat Jan 17 09:07:41 2009
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 02:07:41 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Transhumanist Edge
In-Reply-To: <1232174013_118949@s5.cableone.net>
References: <1fa8c3b90901160715r41332af0oac82d0c3f35a8ec0@mail.gmail.com>
	<1232174013_118949@s5.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <2d6187670901170107j4f863489n5abf57bc70749a9f@mail.gmail.com>

>
> snip
>
>> Frank J. Tipler: But we shall all be changed: "Humanity will see,
>> before I die, the "Singularity," the day when we finally create a
>> human level artificial intelligence.
>>
>
Keith Henson wrote:

> Silly Frank.  If we get to the singularity before he dies, there is no
> reason he should die.
>


Frank Tipler is 61 years old and turns 62 on Feb. 1st.  I really don't see
him living long enough to see the Singularity.  On the other hand, I think
my two year-old nephew has a very good chance of making it.  Hopefully,
Tipler's Omega Point theory will prove true so that his passing in a few
decades won't matter.

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090117/aaba5c3a/attachment.html>

From dagonweb at gmail.com  Sat Jan 17 09:13:28 2009
From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 10:13:28 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The "war on science" is over. Now what?
In-Reply-To: <159FFA63-D72E-4214-B976-E3C3EB3A4C9E@mac.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090116155706.022b0c50@satx.rr.com>
	<159FFA63-D72E-4214-B976-E3C3EB3A4C9E@mac.com>
Message-ID: <bf3acbfc0901170113v35b1ebbcs73167ee51995ac59@mail.gmail.com>

>
> Actually judging by Obama appointees and their known statements,  the new
> administration is every bit as biased on this subject howbeit in the
> opposite direction.


I think a better one, maybe the right direction. But I fear not by half.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090117/c9d6999f/attachment.html>

From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Sat Jan 17 09:26:15 2009
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 02:26:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30901170056t58f9b412rbf8487c6676df3b8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike>
	<f21c22e30901170056t58f9b412rbf8487c6676df3b8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2d6187670901170126i75729a1pf955858162e464b2@mail.gmail.com>

and in other news...

22 year-old sells virginity online- and feds can't do a thing to stop her

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480037,00.html

Tom Hanks says Mormons supporters of Prop 8 "Un-American"

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480167,00.html

And back to the topic of "young Adolph Hitler"

http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=09/01/14/19343771;cmt=28

John  : o
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090117/8ba68597/attachment.html>

From eschatoon at gmail.com  Sat Jan 17 11:18:41 2009
From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:18:41 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Transhumanist Edge
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670901170107j4f863489n5abf57bc70749a9f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1fa8c3b90901160715r41332af0oac82d0c3f35a8ec0@mail.gmail.com>
	<1232174013_118949@s5.cableone.net>
	<2d6187670901170107j4f863489n5abf57bc70749a9f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90901170318k4d5e0157j494a06a9b9be208b@mail.gmail.com>

I also don't see Frank living long enough to see the Singularity.
Hell, I also don't see myself and most readers of this list living
long enough to see the Singularity with the biological eyes we were
born with. Perhaps with a few decades of cryonic sleep.

Tipler's Omega Point is just one of the many possibilities that have
been discussed for our descendants to rescue us from death by "copying
us to the future". I don't know when this may be feasible, and I don't
know if it may be feasible, but I don't see any fundamental reason why
our descendants should not be able to engineer space, time and
information with the required accuracy.

G.

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 10:07 AM, John Grigg
<possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> snip
>>>
>>> Frank J. Tipler: But we shall all be changed: "Humanity will see,
>>> before I die, the "Singularity," the day when we finally create a
>>> human level artificial intelligence.
>
>
> Keith Henson wrote:
>>
>> Silly Frank.  If we get to the singularity before he dies, there is no
>> reason he should die.
>
>
> Frank Tipler is 61 years old and turns 62 on Feb. 1st.  I really don't see
> him living long enough to see the Singularity.  On the other hand, I think
> my two year-old nephew has a very good chance of making it.  Hopefully,
> Tipler's Omega Point theory will prove true so that his passing in a few
> decades won't matter.
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>



-- 
Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
aka Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco


From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Jan 17 13:01:59 2009
From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:01:59 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [ExI] Energy in motion
In-Reply-To: <mailman.58.1232191129.12759.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <117864.81025.qm@web27008.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Stuart wrote:
"Perhaps you are conflating materialism and broader physicalism.
According to Wikipedia: 

"The philosophy of materialism holds that the only thing that can be truly proven to exist is matter, and is considered a form of physicalism. Fundamentally, all things are composed of material and all phenomena (including consciousness) are the result of material interactions; therefore, matter is the only substance."

My point is simply that by the current physical theories, the universe is almost totally immaterial. While matter is a form of energy, it is but one form of energy, and if the boffins are right, it is a very minor component of the universe. So the "substance" of existence is actually energy. And the philosophy should properly be called ergonism. This does not imply that minds are supernatural, but it does imply that reductionism won't be able to explain consciousness."

 I think Stuart is selectively quoting wikipedia here, because a couple of paragraphs down in the same article it says "Modern philosophical materialists extend the definition of matter to include other scientifically observable entities such as energy, forces, and the curvature of space. However philosophers such as Mary Midgley suggest that the concept of "matter" is elusive and poorly defined."

The name "Materialiam" was coined when matter was the main thing we observed in the universe. Now we know that E=MC2 and mass-energy interacts with space, what "matter" is has had to be expanded. As the article says, the concept of "matter" can be hard to define. I suppose strictly speaking the name "materialism" may be slightly out-of-date, but people in the USA still speak "English" rather than "American", and the UK is still the United Kingdom and not the loosely-confederated Queendom. Names often reflect the underlying history of something, rather than the current understanding.

Stuart also wrote:
"If dark energy doesn't actually exist, but it's still in physics then physics is wrong."

Well, physics strives to be the best model we can make to understand the universe with given our current understanding. Therefore physics can't really be said to be completely right or wrong, just the best understanding that could be made at the time. Dark energy and dark matter reflect the observation that our universe looks like space has been distorted by more mass-energy than we can directly observe. Because we can't directly observe it, we call it "dark". By observing its effects on other things, we can theorise and make guesses as to what it is. The current disagreements just show that we don't have enough information to disprove all but one theory.

Tom



      


From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk  Sat Jan 17 13:37:12 2009
From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:37:12 +0000 (GMT)
Subject: [ExI] I'm not sure I understand..please enlighten me.
In-Reply-To: <mailman.58.1232191129.12759.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <587833.33537.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

Anna wrote:

"Why exactly is Transhumanism becoming the new "humanity" link? I thought that religion had no play within the realm of Transhumanism.  

Just looking for valid opinion
Anna:)"

To answer your second sentence, just because religion is not required by transhumanism doesn't mean there is no room for it. Transhumanism isn't one philosophy, but the stream of thoughts and philosophies that make up transhumanist thought can broadly be called physicalist or materialist, and do not require anything supernatural. Many people who have posted to this list are atheists, and many are agnostics. I don't carefully check the religious beliefs of every author whose work I read, but I'm sure a good proportion of transhumanist writers are not religiously inclined. 

That said, Transhumanism does not require belief in the non-existence of a god, or that the supernatural does not exist. Transhumanism is more of a philosophy that we can improve and change the human condition whether or not a god exists. To be religious and a transhumanist means that you are aware that humanity can change itself, and you see this as a hopeful opportunity, and would like to see this happen along lines that are compatible with your faith.

On the other side, to be religious and anti-transhumanist is to be aware that humanity can change itself, and to be scared of this. For Christian & Islamic fundamentalists who treat writings over a thousand year old as the sole source of moral authority, modern bio- and neuro- technologies offer uncharted territory which their source of guidance offers little help with. For those who see altering humanity as "playing god" and a hubristic act, there is a fear that some awful future awaits if we experiment too far.

I may have misread Anna's point, but I thought she was enquiring as to why the WTA/H+ are changing their public image and looking at revising their declaration in order to encourage discourse with the general public and with religious people. I believe it is because the H+ leadership would like to encourage people to see emerging technology that affects humans in a positive way and to encourage the development of these in a way that will benefit humanity in the near-term.

Tom


      


From eschatoon at gmail.com  Sat Jan 17 14:54:45 2009
From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:54:45 +0100
Subject: [ExI] I'm not sure I understand..please enlighten me.
In-Reply-To: <587833.33537.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.58.1232191129.12759.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<587833.33537.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90901170654y502ef8aexb35993d5955eefb8@mail.gmail.com>

Tom, I think a belief in the "supernatural" is hardly compatible with
transhumanism, or with any system of thought based on the scientific
method. To me the "supernatural" does not exist as a matter of
definition: we define "nature" as all that exists, hence nothing
outside of nature exists. This is grammar, not philosophy.
Transhumanists also think that everything in existence can in
principle, and should, be studied by science and improved (or built
from scratch) by engineering.

Having said this, we should bear in mind that reality may well be much
more complex than we currently know and imagine, and that in this huge
complexity there may well be room for things that could seem
"supernatural", including an afterlife and one or more Gods. I am
referring to Clarke's third law and Shakespeare "there are more things
in heavens and earth...". But the wonderful things that may well exist
in the present or future universe are not supernatural, just beyond
our current understanding.

G.

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Tom Nowell <nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> That said, Transhumanism does not require belief in the non-existence of a god, or that the supernatural does not exist. Transhumanism is more of a philosophy that we can improve and change the human condition whether or not a god exists.
-- 
Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
aka Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco


From ankara at tbaytel.net  Sat Jan 17 15:28:37 2009
From: ankara at tbaytel.net (ankara)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 10:28:37 -0500
Subject: [ExI]  FW: how the hell did this happen?
Message-ID: <867d3ad37a4653cf0963840b35c5e375@tbaytel.net>

Hi Spike,

The so-called child-protection agency (the CAS here in Canada) workers 
do this sort of 'kidnapping' as part of their mandate - no court order, 
no judge, no oversight, and no redress for their victims. CAS 
especially like to target newborns whose vulnerable (read, young, 
single, alone) new mothers are without resources (social and 
financial).

See for example, Bush-funded scam at Gladney
http://www.ednagladney.com/html/pregnant/adoptFacts.php

They are in the business of 'saving' babies - that is, transferring 
kids from economically oppressed but fertile groups (the 'unfit') to 
elite but infertile groups. So long as the gen-pop deems single 
motherhood and especially welfare-motherhood a blight on society, such 
subtle social cleansing will go on.

The 'adoption' market (manufacturing orphans) is fueled by the high 
demand for infants and driven by infertile elites who are willing to 
pay ANY amount, no questions asked. Pregnancy-highjacking, 
newborn-abduction, child-kidnapping - all perfectly legal and socially 
sanctioned!

~ankara

>  Please, am I the only one who is hearing major alarm bells when I see
> stories like this one?
>
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480248,00.html
>
> Particularly this comment:
>
> ...the DYFS did not tell police why the children were taken from their
> parents...
>
> So now the family services people have somehow been granted power that
> exceeds the local police, so that they can take children from their 
> families
> without having to explain why?  To anyone?  Even the police?  If the 
> family
> shot the DYFS people dead in their tracks while in the home, would it 
> not be
> perfectly justifiable homicide?  If the DYFS people were there 
> apparently
> without a warrant (and if a warrant, based on what authority?) with the
> intention of taking the children, would they not be kidnappers, and 
> richly
> deserve to find themselves on the receiving end of deadly force?  
> Where did
> this authority come from?  Is there some mysterious crypto-constitution
> granting these powers?   What is the role of the police in this case?
>
> In the egregious and shameful Yearning For Zion Ranch case, I also saw 
> the
> local police and sheriff standing around wondering what they were 
> supposed
> to do. In my thinking, if the family services decided they needed to 
> take
> children from any family (even a rotten one), they should be required 
> to
> work thru the local police, with a tall stack of justifying paperwork 
> with
> some really big signatures on every page.
>
> Do explain, someone who knows.
>
> spike
>


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sat Jan 17 17:16:50 2009
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 10:16:50 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Transhumanist Edge
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670901170107j4f863489n5abf57bc70749a9f@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <1fa8c3b90901160715r41332af0oac82d0c3f35a8ec0@mail.gmail.com>
	<1232174013_118949@s5.cableone.net>
	<2d6187670901170107j4f863489n5abf57bc70749a9f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1232212971_121061@s2.cableone.net>

At 02:07 AM 1/17/2009, you wrote:
>snip
>Frank J. Tipler: But we shall all be changed: "Humanity will see,
>before I die, the "Singularity," the day when we finally create a
>human level artificial intelligence.
>
>Keith Henson wrote:
>Silly Frank.  If we get to the singularity before he dies, there is 
>no reason he should die.
>
>Frank Tipler is 61 years old and turns 62 on Feb. 1st.  I really 
>don't see him living long enough to see the Singularity.  On the 
>other hand, I think my two year-old nephew has a very good chance of 
>making it.  Hopefully, Tipler's Omega Point theory will prove true 
>so that his passing in a few decades won't matter.

I am 66 and will be 67 in July.  My parents lived to about 90.  Life 
extension might kick in during the next few decades.  And there is 
always cryonics as a worst case backup.  Anyone know Frank well 
enough to talk to him about it?

Keith




From scerir at libero.it  Sat Jan 17 17:59:52 2009
From: scerir at libero.it (scerir)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:59:52 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Transhumanist Edge
References: <1fa8c3b90901160715r41332af0oac82d0c3f35a8ec0@mail.gmail.com><1232174013_118949@s5.cableone.net>
	<2d6187670901170107j4f863489n5abf57bc70749a9f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <002a01c978cd$66567260$e3e81e97@archimede>

> >> Frank J. Tipler: But we shall all be changed: "Humanity will see,
> >> before I die, the "Singularity," the day when we finally create a
> >> human level artificial intelligence.

given the political problems with the qc
http://synaptic-labs.com/ecosystem/context-qc-relevant-today.html
I can hardly imegine the political
problems with the AI (human level or more)
:-)


From msd001 at gmail.com  Sat Jan 17 18:33:34 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:33:34 -0500
Subject: [ExI] I'm not sure I understand..please enlighten me.
In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90901170654y502ef8aexb35993d5955eefb8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.58.1232191129.12759.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<587833.33537.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<1fa8c3b90901170654y502ef8aexb35993d5955eefb8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240901171033r3615d2b4s4939e1d5aa29e19@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Eschatoon Magic <eschatoon at gmail.com> wrote:
> Tom, I think a belief in the "supernatural" is hardly compatible with
> transhumanism, or with any system of thought based on the scientific
> method. To me the "supernatural" does not exist as a matter of
> definition: we define "nature" as all that exists, hence nothing
> outside of nature exists. This is grammar, not philosophy.

I'd say this is semantics.  If nature is all that exists, then what of
the future?  Computronium, as commonly conceived on this list, does
not exist - is it outside nature?  Do we hope to bring it into
existence?  Is nature inclusive of all possible futures?  Are we
defining nature to include multiple dimensions of space-time?  If we
stretch the definition beyond it's commonly understood usage, it
becomes nearly meaningless.  If we accept the general SL1-level
understanding of nature as the concept associated with the term, then
the ideas of SL3+ become supernatural by definition.  By this point we
are discussing the denominations of transhumanism as surely as
Protestant and Methodist are denominations of Christianity.

> Transhumanists also think that everything in existence can in
> principle, and should, be studied by science and improved (or built
> from scratch) by engineering.

By that definition, was Pythagoras a transhumanist?

> Having said this, we should bear in mind that reality may well be much
> more complex than we currently know and imagine, and that in this huge
> complexity there may well be room for things that could seem
> "supernatural", including an afterlife and one or more Gods. I am
> referring to Clarke's third law and Shakespeare "there are more things
> in heavens and earth...". But the wonderful things that may well exist
> in the present or future universe are not supernatural, just beyond
> our current understanding.

Yes, and any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
from magic.  Wielding that advantage over the less advanced raises
morality questions.  To borrow an example from SciFi's SG1 series: the
Goa'uld posing as Egyptian gods was wrong, while the Asgard as Norse
gods presented themselves to be benevolent protectors.  Both lied to
their naive human wards.

I do agree with you (Eschatoon) that transhumanism should be defined
in a way that clearly reinforces the goal of reaching higher.
However, if the goal is only to exceed Humanism - then once humanity
is uplifted (by whatever means) there will be no purpose for
transhumanism as group.


From spike66 at att.net  Sat Jan 17 18:23:15 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 10:23:15 -0800
Subject: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670901170126i75729a1pf955858162e464b2@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike><f21c22e30901170056t58f9b412rbf8487c6676df3b8@mail.gmail.com>
	<2d6187670901170126i75729a1pf955858162e464b2@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <08E65488B2AD49EF92552DE1CDCA73B3@spike>

 


________________________________

...On Behalf Of John Grigg
...
	And back to the topic of "young Adolph Hitler"
	
	http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=09/01/14/19343771;cmt=28
	
	John  : o
	
	
	
Thanks John.  Do let me ignore the poetic justice of having the silly twits
who named their children after the horrifying symbol of totalitarianism
becoming themselves the victims of appalling totalitarianism.  I offer
everyone here some critically important advice if you have children or
grandchildren, or hope to some day:

If the child "protective" service ever shows up at your house, do not let
them into your home, do not allow them to stay on your property, do not let
them talk to your children, disregard their threats, take your chances with
the American legal system.

Reasoning: the CPS is apparently working outside the legal boundaries of the
constitution.  If the actual American justice system wants to take your
children, they know they need to have a warrant for your arrest, and they
understand the burden of proof is on the state.  Apparently the CPS has been
illegally empowered or has empowered itself to take your children at its own
discretion, at which time the burden of proof is on YOU to prove yourself
innocent of whatever arbitrary charge they wish to imagine.

The CPS people are not real police, but they somehow manage to convince the
proletariat otherwise, then seduce and threaten them into submission.  Don't
fall for it.  If you go thru the actual legal system, you have a bunch of
constitutional rights (thank you very much and blessed be your sacred memory
Mr. Madison, true hero and visionary), eighth amendment rights and many
other rights that you FORFEIT if you cooperate voluntarily with this CPS
organization.  

The CPS have repeatedly shown themselves untrustworthy.  If you tell them to
go home and read the constitution, you will likely never hear from any of
them again.  In this young Hitler case, they should explain to all the
neighbors, the local police, the state of New Jersey, the news media and the
nation what the hell they are doing and why, in detail, supplying a list of
justifications and legal reasoning behind their actions.  I do not want a
short list with the comment "they named their son Adolph Hitler," for we
already know that, but in this once-free nation, stupid is not a crime.

spike

By the way, it was zion yearners first, nazis second, now who do you suppose
is next on the hit list?  Hint: if you have a koran in your house, I suggest
you get rid of that forthwith.







From msd001 at gmail.com  Sat Jan 17 19:12:04 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:12:04 -0500
Subject: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
In-Reply-To: <08E65488B2AD49EF92552DE1CDCA73B3@spike>
References: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike>
	<f21c22e30901170056t58f9b412rbf8487c6676df3b8@mail.gmail.com>
	<2d6187670901170126i75729a1pf955858162e464b2@mail.gmail.com>
	<08E65488B2AD49EF92552DE1CDCA73B3@spike>
Message-ID: <62c14240901171112k58f3cd9bvff9a1296c515a0d0@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:23 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> justifications and legal reasoning behind their actions.  I do not want a
> short list with the comment "they named their son Adolph Hitler," for we
> already know that, but in this once-free nation, stupid is not a crime.

Stupid is not a crime if it's the right kind of stupid.

Even if it were a crime, it's so prevalent that there would be no way
to enforce any anti-stupid laws.


From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sat Jan 17 19:10:49 2009
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 12:10:49 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Transhumanist Edge
In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90901170318k4d5e0157j494a06a9b9be208b@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <1fa8c3b90901160715r41332af0oac82d0c3f35a8ec0@mail.gmail.com>
	<1232174013_118949@s5.cableone.net>
	<2d6187670901170107j4f863489n5abf57bc70749a9f@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fa8c3b90901170318k4d5e0157j494a06a9b9be208b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1232219811_120527@s5.cableone.net>

At 04:18 AM 1/17/2009, Giulio wrote:

>I also don't see Frank living long enough to see the Singularity.
>Hell, I also don't see myself and most readers of this list living
>long enough to see the Singularity with the biological eyes we were
>born with. Perhaps with a few decades of cryonic sleep.
>
>Tipler's Omega Point is just one of the many possibilities that have
>been discussed for our descendants to rescue us from death by "copying
>us to the future". I don't know when this may be feasible, and I don't
>know if it may be feasible, but I don't see any fundamental reason why
>our descendants should not be able to engineer space, time and
>information with the required accuracy.

I wrote about this decades ago, in the lost 
extropian archives.  But some was excerpted in a 
column I wrote for _Cryonics_.

*********
   "It is trivial to work up counter-arguments.  For example, while our
motivations seem to include a strong component of interest in history, this
might not be true of our future selves where we have messed with our
motivations.  Perhaps reconstructions of the past would be so painful to
the inhabitants of the future that there would be very strong social
pressure not to do it.  (See the end section of Marc Stiegler's "Gentle
Seduction.")

   "In reference to cryonics being low tech, as one on the "wetwork" team,
this end of it sure is painful and imperfect -- though certainly no worse
than the only available alternatives!  There is, however, no reason to
believe that the other end of the process should be painful, and it should
be perfect to the limit of the available information in the frozen patient.

   "As far as working from the traces left behind -- well, maybe.  I could
imagine a process where some ambitious grad student was trying to make a
minimum error "reconstruction" of the historical Hans at the point he
finished 'Mind Children.'  So he simulates Hans and the complete
environment in which he grew up, does a comparison between the original
book and the reconstruction's version and iterates the process till there
are few or no text differences.  I hope the temporal version of the Humane
Society would make the discard process painless, but how many versions of
Hans would have to be discarded before this process converged?  (Assuming,
of course, that it would converge!)  Of course, the process would have to
be a joint reconstruction of editors, authors, and (in many cases) the
typesetters who introduced some of the typos.

   "I suspect, however, that the above process is unworkable no matter how
many resources are poured into it.  Chaos makes it impossible to predict
beyond certain horizons in the future direction.  The inverse of this
should make it impossible to tell which of a multitude of pasts led up to
the present.

   "Following [list member] Perry Metzger's lead, I won't preach either.
I think our world will be less interesting for the decisions of Heinlein,
Moravec, and innumerable others who turn down the cryonics option, but it
is their decision.  All I can do is be appreciative of those who are trying
to make it."

*********
http://www.alcor.org/cryonics/cryonics9212.txt Future Tech column.

Charles Stross picked up on the "vile offspring" 
who were in the process of converting the solar 
system to computronium doing this near the end of 
_Accelerando_.  I presume everyone on this list 
has read _Accelerando_ .  There is no excuse for 
not doing so.  http://www.accelerando.org/  You 
don't even have to get off your bewalkus.

*********
The place is already heaving with the 
resimulated. Just why the Vile Offspring seem to 
feel it's necessary to apply valuable exaquops to 
the job of deriving accurate simulations of dead 
humans ? outrageously accurate simulations of 
long-dead lives, annealed until their written 
corpus matches that inherited from the 
presingularity era in the form of chicken 
scratchings on mashed tree pulp ? much less 
beaming them at the refugee camps on Saturn ? is 
beyond Sirhan's ken: But he wishes they'd stop.

snip

How you got here:

The center of the solar system ? Mercury, Venus, 
Earth's Moon, Mars, the asteroid belt, and 
Jupiter ? have been dismantled, or are being 
dismantled, by weakly godlike intelligences. [NB: 
Monotheistic clergy and Europeans who remember 
living prior to 1600, see alternative memeplex 
"in the beginning."] A weakly godlike 
intelligence is not a supernatural agency, but 
the product of a highly advanced society that 
learned how to artificially create souls [late 
20th century: software] and translate human minds 
into souls and vice versa. [Core concepts: Human 
beings all have souls. Souls are software objects. Software is not immortal.]

Some of the weakly godlike intelligences appear 
to cultivate an interest in their human 
antecedents ? for whatever reason is not known. 
(Possibilities include the study of history 
through horticulture, entertainment through 
live-action role-playing, revenge, and economic 
forgery.) While no definitive analysis is 
possible, all the resimulated persons to date 
exhibit certain common characteristics: They are 
all based on well-documented historical persons, 
their memories show suspicious gaps [see: smoke 
and mirrors], and they are ignorant of or predate 
the singularity [see: Turing Oracle, Vinge catastrophe].

It is believed that the weakly godlike agencies 
have created you as a vehicle for the 
introspective study of your historical antecedent 
by backward-chaining from your corpus of 
documented works, and the back-projected genome 
derived from your collateral descendants, to 
generate an abstract description of your 
computational state vector. This technique is 
extremely intensive [see: expTime-complete 
algorithms, Turing Oracle, time travel, 
industrial magic] but marginally plausible in the 
absence of supernatural explanations.

After experiencing your life, the weakly godlike 
agencies have expelled you. For reasons unknown, 
they chose to do this by transmitting your upload 
state and genome/proteome complex to receivers 
owned and operated by a consortium of charities 
based on Saturn. These charities have provided 
for your basic needs, including the body you now occupy.

In summary: You are a reconstruction of someone 
who lived and died a long time ago, not a 
reincarnation. You have no intrinsic moral right 
to the identity you believe to be your own, and 
an extensive body of case law states that you do 
not inherit your antecedent's possessions. Other 
than that, you are a free individual.

Note that fictional resimulation is strictly 
forbidden. If you have reason to believe that you 
may be a fictional character, you must contact 
the city immediately. [ See: James Bond, Spider 
Jerusalem.] Failure to comply is a felony.

**********
In spite of this cool fictional treatment, I 
still have extreme doubts the process is 
feasible.  Lost information is *lost.*  We are 
not likely to read the library of Alexander or 
talk to Heinlein.  In any case, a reconstruction 
is not the original no matter how will it is done.

So if anyone knows Tipper personally, talk to him 
about signing up for cryonics.

Keith Henson 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jan 17 19:40:39 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:40:39 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The Transhumanist Edge
In-Reply-To: <1232219811_120527@s5.cableone.net>
References: <1fa8c3b90901160715r41332af0oac82d0c3f35a8ec0@mail.gmail.com>
	<1232174013_118949@s5.cableone.net>
	<2d6187670901170107j4f863489n5abf57bc70749a9f@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fa8c3b90901170318k4d5e0157j494a06a9b9be208b@mail.gmail.com>
	<1232219811_120527@s5.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090117133317.02429e08@satx.rr.com>

At 12:10 PM 1/17/2009 -0700, Keith wrote:

>So if anyone knows Tipper personally, talk to him about signing up 
>for cryonics.

Your reservations about the feasibility of Omega Point recovery are 
well taken, but *Tipler appears to believe in it* so it's almost 
certain that he'd see cryonics as entirely beside the point. If one 
knows with every fiber of your brain that Bill Gates is going to give 
you his entire wealth next Tuesday, why would one bother crossing the 
street to buy a lottery ticket? One's "knowledge" of this gift is 
very probably delusional or at least ill-founded, but that's an 
outsider's perspective.

Damien Broderick 



From spike66 at att.net  Sat Jan 17 19:33:44 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 11:33:44 -0800
Subject: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
In-Reply-To: <62c14240901171112k58f3cd9bvff9a1296c515a0d0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike><f21c22e30901170056t58f9b412rbf8487c6676df3b8@mail.gmail.com><2d6187670901170126i75729a1pf955858162e464b2@mail.gmail.com><08E65488B2AD49EF92552DE1CDCA73B3@spike>
	<62c14240901171112k58f3cd9bvff9a1296c515a0d0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F579951AE8F246F399E056CE6587F11D@spike>

 

> Mike Dougherty
> 
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 1:23 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> > ...but in this once-free nation, stupid is not a crime.
> 
> Stupid is not a crime if it's the right kind of stupid.
> 
> Even if it were a crime, it's so prevalent that there would 
> be no way to enforce any anti-stupid laws.


Oy vey, ja, truer words are seldom spoken Mike.

Well, we can be sure the ACLU will soon be galloping to the rescue of these
people from New Jersey, since the charter of the ACLU assures us their
mission is to protect our constitutional and civil rights.  I expect to hear
from them real soon now.  Or not, but I have half a mind to contact the ACLU
and assure them we would have so much better an attitude if the ACLU would
occasionally come to the defense of these aggregious nut-cases who are
apparently having their constitutional rights trampled.

spike




 



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sat Jan 17 21:24:21 2009
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:24:21 -0800
Subject: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
References: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike><f21c22e30901170056t58f9b412rbf8487c6676df3b8@mail.gmail.com><2d6187670901170126i75729a1pf955858162e464b2@mail.gmail.com><08E65488B2AD49EF92552DE1CDCA73B3@spike><62c14240901171112k58f3cd9bvff9a1296c515a0d0@mail.gmail.com>
	<F579951AE8F246F399E056CE6587F11D@spike>
Message-ID: <14EA52C013E84613975D67833F90B4DB@patrick4ezsk6z>

From: "spike" <spike66 at att.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 11:33 AM
> Well, we can be sure the ACLU will soon be galloping to the rescue of 
> these people from New Jersey, since the charter of the ACLU assures us 
> their mission is to protect our constitutional and civil rights.  I expect 
> to hear from them real soon now.  Or not, but I have half a mind to 
> contact the ACLU and assure them we would have so much better an attitude 
> if the ACLU would occasionally come to the defense of these aggregious 
> nut-cases who are apparently having their constitutional rights trampled.

The ACLU did defend a Nazi organization in this famous case (and there was 
even a made-for-TV-movie about it):

http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/strwhe.html

Olga 



From spike66 at att.net  Sat Jan 17 22:21:57 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:21:57 -0800
Subject: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
In-Reply-To: <14EA52C013E84613975D67833F90B4DB@patrick4ezsk6z>
References: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike><f21c22e30901170056t58f9b412rbf8487c6676df3b8@mail.gmail.com><2d6187670901170126i75729a1pf955858162e464b2@mail.gmail.com><08E65488B2AD49EF92552DE1CDCA73B3@spike><62c14240901171112k58f3cd9bvff9a1296c515a0d0@mail.gmail.com><F579951AE8F246F399E056CE6587F11D@spike>
	<14EA52C013E84613975D67833F90B4DB@patrick4ezsk6z>
Message-ID: <71F13F805C674AF4B02E030E066B3D2A@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin

> Subject: Re: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
> 
> From: "spike" <spike66 at att.net>
> >...we would have so much better 
> > an attitude if the ACLU would occasionally come to the defense of 
> > these aggregious nut-cases who are apparently having their 
> constitutional rights trampled.
> 
> The ACLU did defend a Nazi organization in this famous case 
> (and there was even a made-for-TV-movie about it):
> 
> http://www.kansaspress.ku.edu/strwhe.html
> 
> Olga 


Cool thanks Olga.  Do you have any contacts with anyone associated, to give
them the heads up?  Looks like an opportunity of a decade to build some
support for the ACLU.

spike






From godsdice at gmail.com  Sat Jan 17 23:10:19 2009
From: godsdice at gmail.com (Rick Strongitharm)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:10:19 -0500
Subject: [ExI] NEW SCIENTIST: Our world may be a giant hologram
In-Reply-To: <9ff585550901162025g1c42193ck8579ad34ec521f7f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <9ff585550901162025g1c42193ck8579ad34ec521f7f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <a69380f0901171510n606bd59elb19157e5a67c711@mail.gmail.com>

*http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Holographic_Universe*.
  *The Holographic Universe* is a physics book by Michael
Talbot<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Talbot>that explores the
idea that the entire universe is a
hologram <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hologram>. After examining the work
of physicist David Bohm <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Bohm> and
neurophysiologist Karl Pribram <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Pribram>,
both of whom independently arrived at holographic theories or models of the
universe, the book then argues that a holographic model could explain
various paranormal <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranormal> and anomalous
phenomena, and provide a basis for mystical
experience<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mystical_experience>
.



-- 
"Dogma blinds."
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090117/4e128b38/attachment.html>

From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sat Jan 17 23:21:13 2009
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:21:13 -0800
Subject: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
References: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike><f21c22e30901170056t58f9b412rbf8487c6676df3b8@mail.gmail.com><2d6187670901170126i75729a1pf955858162e464b2@mail.gmail.com><08E65488B2AD49EF92552DE1CDCA73B3@spike><62c14240901171112k58f3cd9bvff9a1296c515a0d0@mail.gmail.com><F579951AE8F246F399E056CE6587F11D@spike><14EA52C013E84613975D67833F90B4DB@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<71F13F805C674AF4B02E030E066B3D2A@spike>
Message-ID: <7F34010A896A4EC29200A35317B46C92@patrick4ezsk6z>

From: "spike" <spike66 at att.net>
To: "'ExI chat list'" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2009 2:21 PM

> Cool thanks Olga.  Do you have any contacts with anyone associated, to 
> give
> them the heads up?  Looks like an opportunity of a decade to build some
> support for the ACLU.

I used to know people in our local ACLU 10-20 years ago, but I've not been 
keeping up with them lately.

I just signed a heads-up for the ACLU ... here's the link:

http://www.aclu.org/contact/general/

Maybe those of us on the list who are interested could also do that.  Let 
the ACLU know your concern.  Here's the story (from Spike's original post on 
this matter):

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480248,00.html

Olga 



From spike66 at att.net  Sun Jan 18 00:17:26 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 16:17:26 -0800
Subject: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
In-Reply-To: <7F34010A896A4EC29200A35317B46C92@patrick4ezsk6z>
References: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike><f21c22e30901170056t58f9b412rbf8487c6676df3b8@mail.gmail.com><2d6187670901170126i75729a1pf955858162e464b2@mail.gmail.com><08E65488B2AD49EF92552DE1CDCA73B3@spike><62c14240901171112k58f3cd9bvff9a1296c515a0d0@mail.gmail.com><F579951AE8F246F399E056CE6587F11D@spike><14EA52C013E84613975D67833F90B4DB@patrick4ezsk6z><71F13F805C674AF4B02E030E066B3D2A@spike>
	<7F34010A896A4EC29200A35317B46C92@patrick4ezsk6z>
Message-ID: <C9FA7FA2C7A14B1B85D72593015C2B52@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Olga Bourlin
...
> 
> I just signed a heads-up for the ACLU ... here's the link:
> 
> http://www.aclu.org/contact/general/
> 
> Maybe those of us on the list who are interested could also 
> do that.  Let the ACLU know your concern.  Here's the story 
> (from Spike's original post on this matter):
> 
> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,480248,00.html
> 
> Olga 


Thanks Olga, good work.  

I imagined an interesting thought experiment:  what if... the Campbells had
been Palestinians, from Gaza?  What would the CPS do in that case?  If they
were sympathetic with Hitler it would at least be easy to explain why, ja?
Did anyone come up with any answer to this experiment besides: nothing?  The
CPS would do nothing in that case.

I expect there is a lot more to this CPS action beyond the Campbells giving
their kids stigmatic names, but my point is that the CPS must tell us those
reasons, and they better be damn good ones, with plenty of evidence for
every claim.  Government agencies can never be trusted with arbitrary power,
certainly not the power to take anyone's children at their own arbitrary
discretion without meticulous oversight and accountability.

spike






From msd001 at gmail.com  Sun Jan 18 00:58:05 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 19:58:05 -0500
Subject: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
In-Reply-To: <C9FA7FA2C7A14B1B85D72593015C2B52@spike>
References: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike>
	<f21c22e30901170056t58f9b412rbf8487c6676df3b8@mail.gmail.com>
	<2d6187670901170126i75729a1pf955858162e464b2@mail.gmail.com>
	<08E65488B2AD49EF92552DE1CDCA73B3@spike>
	<62c14240901171112k58f3cd9bvff9a1296c515a0d0@mail.gmail.com>
	<F579951AE8F246F399E056CE6587F11D@spike>
	<14EA52C013E84613975D67833F90B4DB@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<71F13F805C674AF4B02E030E066B3D2A@spike>
	<7F34010A896A4EC29200A35317B46C92@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<C9FA7FA2C7A14B1B85D72593015C2B52@spike>
Message-ID: <62c14240901171658x4eca528u568fbfadd91a1c82@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 7:17 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> I imagined an interesting thought experiment:  what if... the Campbells had
> been Palestinians, from Gaza?  What would the CPS do in that case?  If they
> were sympathetic with Hitler it would at least be easy to explain why, ja?
> Did anyone come up with any answer to this experiment besides: nothing?  The
> CPS would do nothing in that case.
>
> I expect there is a lot more to this CPS action beyond the Campbells giving
> their kids stigmatic names, but my point is that the CPS must tell us those
> reasons, and they better be damn good ones, with plenty of evidence for
> every claim.  Government agencies can never be trusted with arbitrary power,
> certainly not the power to take anyone's children at their own arbitrary
> discretion without meticulous oversight and accountability.

I know children are not the same as dogs, but this story sounds
frighteningly similar to this one:
http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/articles/breedbanslabradormistake.htm

(I have an AmStaf, and had recently read the above article)


From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Sun Jan 18 01:57:33 2009
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 18:57:33 -0700
Subject: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
In-Reply-To: <62c14240901171658x4eca528u568fbfadd91a1c82@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike>
	<2d6187670901170126i75729a1pf955858162e464b2@mail.gmail.com>
	<08E65488B2AD49EF92552DE1CDCA73B3@spike>
	<62c14240901171112k58f3cd9bvff9a1296c515a0d0@mail.gmail.com>
	<F579951AE8F246F399E056CE6587F11D@spike>
	<14EA52C013E84613975D67833F90B4DB@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<71F13F805C674AF4B02E030E066B3D2A@spike>
	<7F34010A896A4EC29200A35317B46C92@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<C9FA7FA2C7A14B1B85D72593015C2B52@spike>
	<62c14240901171658x4eca528u568fbfadd91a1c82@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2d6187670901171757j77864faenb1a5033a316cd154@mail.gmail.com>

I sometimes worry that humanity will use our rapidly advancing technology to
forge our own chains of "for your own good" Big Brother enslavement, in the
name of public safety and national security (East may meet West on this
one).  When I see abuses like these, I wonder how we can stave off far worse
possible things when so many citizens seem not to care and don't get
involved (or are simply obsessed with trying to make a living and provide
for their family's, which can be an exhausting task!).  Public apathy could
destroy us...

I wish I had more time to pontificate but I'm off to an Edgar Alan Poe
Festival!  : )

John
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090117/7f676f49/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jan 18 02:17:13 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 20:17:13 -0600
Subject: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670901171757j77864faenb1a5033a316cd154@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike>
	<2d6187670901170126i75729a1pf955858162e464b2@mail.gmail.com>
	<08E65488B2AD49EF92552DE1CDCA73B3@spike>
	<62c14240901171112k58f3cd9bvff9a1296c515a0d0@mail.gmail.com>
	<F579951AE8F246F399E056CE6587F11D@spike>
	<14EA52C013E84613975D67833F90B4DB@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<71F13F805C674AF4B02E030E066B3D2A@spike>
	<7F34010A896A4EC29200A35317B46C92@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<C9FA7FA2C7A14B1B85D72593015C2B52@spike>
	<62c14240901171658x4eca528u568fbfadd91a1c82@mail.gmail.com>
	<2d6187670901171757j77864faenb1a5033a316cd154@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090117201600.022b3868@satx.rr.com>

At 06:57 PM 1/17/2009 -0700, JG wrote:

>I wish I had more time to pontificate

Mormons aren't allowed to pontificate. Shouldn't you bishopricate?



From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Jan 18 02:59:47 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:59:47 +1100
Subject: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
In-Reply-To: <08E65488B2AD49EF92552DE1CDCA73B3@spike>
References: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike>
	<f21c22e30901170056t58f9b412rbf8487c6676df3b8@mail.gmail.com>
	<2d6187670901170126i75729a1pf955858162e464b2@mail.gmail.com>
	<08E65488B2AD49EF92552DE1CDCA73B3@spike>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30901171859h2550230av7cabd98af868fc51@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/18 spike <spike66 at att.net>:

> If the child "protective" service ever shows up at your house, do not let
> them into your home, do not allow them to stay on your property, do not let
> them talk to your children, disregard their threats, take your chances with
> the American legal system.

I don't know what the actual laws are in each state, but as a
practical point it would be pretty silly if child protective services
didn't have the right to ask for police assistance if they were
politely asked to leave.

I am quite often in the position of having to make a notification to
protective services in the Australian state where I work regarding
mentally ill parents who are my patients. It's a very difficult job:
on the one hand it's a terrible thing to take someone's child away, or
even to suggest that they may not be a fit parent, but on the other
hand you don't want to be responsible for allowing neglect or
sometimes outright physical abuse. It's an especially sensitive topic
in Australia due to the so-called "Stolen Generation", where
Aboriginal children last century were forcibly removed from their
families by government
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stolen_Generation).


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From spike66 at att.net  Sun Jan 18 06:06:01 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 22:06:01 -0800
Subject: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
In-Reply-To: <62c14240901171658x4eca528u568fbfadd91a1c82@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike><f21c22e30901170056t58f9b412rbf8487c6676df3b8@mail.gmail.com><2d6187670901170126i75729a1pf955858162e464b2@mail.gmail.com><08E65488B2AD49EF92552DE1CDCA73B3@spike><62c14240901171112k58f3cd9bvff9a1296c515a0d0@mail.gmail.com><F579951AE8F246F399E056CE6587F11D@spike><14EA52C013E84613975D67833F90B4DB@patrick4ezsk6z><71F13F805C674AF4B02E030E066B3D2A@spike><7F34010A896A4EC29200A35317B46C92@patrick4ezsk6z><C9FA7FA2C7A14B1B85D72593015C2B52@spike>
	<62c14240901171658x4eca528u568fbfadd91a1c82@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <22E08C3120E9489D911BE9274B57D81C@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty

> > ...  Government agencies can never be trusted 
> > with arbitrary power, certainly not the power to take anyone's 
> > children at their own arbitrary discretion without 
> > meticulous oversight and accountability.
> 
> I know children are not the same as dogs, but this story 
> sounds frighteningly similar to this one:
> http://www.dogbreedinfo.com/articles/breedbanslabradormistake.htm
> 
> (I have an AmStaf, and had recently read the above article) 


Thanks Mike.  My friends, please take note of what is happening.  

-->  Not knowing your rights is equivalent to having no rights.  <--

Do not be a victim.  Read your constitution and know your legal rights
please.  Teach them to your children and grandchildren, teach them that our
forefathers fought and some perished for those rights.  Do not let them be
taken away by phony cops, the animal nazis from the SPCA, the CPS, or
anyone.  Let us hang together or we shall all hang separately.

spike






From dagonweb at gmail.com  Sun Jan 18 06:43:03 2009
From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 07:43:03 +0100
Subject: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
In-Reply-To: <08E65488B2AD49EF92552DE1CDCA73B3@spike>
References: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike>
	<f21c22e30901170056t58f9b412rbf8487c6676df3b8@mail.gmail.com>
	<2d6187670901170126i75729a1pf955858162e464b2@mail.gmail.com>
	<08E65488B2AD49EF92552DE1CDCA73B3@spike>
Message-ID: <bf3acbfc0901172243h570e37b5rf03cd871d7c7cada@mail.gmail.com>

Odd,I trust child protective services here in the netherlands implicitly.
Must
be a management style or cultural thing.

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 7:23 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> ...On Behalf Of John Grigg
> ...
>         And back to the topic of "young Adolph Hitler"
>
>        http://www.plastic.com/article.html;sid=09/01/14/19343771;cmt=28
>
>        John  : o
>
>
>
> Thanks John.  Do let me ignore the poetic justice of having the silly twits
> who named their children after the horrifying symbol of totalitarianism
> becoming themselves the victims of appalling totalitarianism.  I offer
> everyone here some critically important advice if you have children or
> grandchildren, or hope to some day:
>
> If the child "protective" service ever shows up at your house, do not let
> them into your home, do not allow them to stay on your property, do not let
> them talk to your children, disregard their threats, take your chances with
> the American legal system.
>
> Reasoning: the CPS is apparently working outside the legal boundaries of
> the
> constitution.  If the actual American justice system wants to take your
> children, they know they need to have a warrant for your arrest, and they
> understand the burden of proof is on the state.  Apparently the CPS has
> been
> illegally empowered or has empowered itself to take your children at its
> own
> discretion, at which time the burden of proof is on YOU to prove yourself
> innocent of whatever arbitrary charge they wish to imagine.
>
> The CPS people are not real police, but they somehow manage to convince the
> proletariat otherwise, then seduce and threaten them into submission.
>  Don't
> fall for it.  If you go thru the actual legal system, you have a bunch of
> constitutional rights (thank you very much and blessed be your sacred
> memory
> Mr. Madison, true hero and visionary), eighth amendment rights and many
> other rights that you FORFEIT if you cooperate voluntarily with this CPS
> organization.
>
> The CPS have repeatedly shown themselves untrustworthy.  If you tell them
> to
> go home and read the constitution, you will likely never hear from any of
> them again.  In this young Hitler case, they should explain to all the
> neighbors, the local police, the state of New Jersey, the news media and
> the
> nation what the hell they are doing and why, in detail, supplying a list of
> justifications and legal reasoning behind their actions.  I do not want a
> short list with the comment "they named their son Adolph Hitler," for we
> already know that, but in this once-free nation, stupid is not a crime.
>
> spike
>
> By the way, it was zion yearners first, nazis second, now who do you
> suppose
> is next on the hit list?  Hint: if you have a koran in your house, I
> suggest
> you get rid of that forthwith.
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090118/8314c813/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sun Jan 18 06:40:07 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 22:40:07 -0800
Subject: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30901171859h2550230av7cabd98af868fc51@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike><f21c22e30901170056t58f9b412rbf8487c6676df3b8@mail.gmail.com><2d6187670901170126i75729a1pf955858162e464b2@mail.gmail.com><08E65488B2AD49EF92552DE1CDCA73B3@spike>
	<f21c22e30901171859h2550230av7cabd98af868fc51@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <EFFC09B940324B21928A299E6B799F0F@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou
> 
> 2009/1/18 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
> 
> > If the child "protective" service ever shows up at your 
> house, do not 
> > let them into your home, do not allow them to stay on your 
> property, 
> > do not let them talk to your children, disregard their 
> threats, take 
> > your chances with the American legal system.
> 
> I don't know what the actual laws are in each state, but as a 
> practical point it would be pretty silly if child protective 
> services didn't have the right to ask for police assistance 
> if they were politely asked to leave.
> 
> I am quite often in the position of having to make a 
> notification to protective services in the Australian state 
...
> Stathis Papaioannou

Thanks Stathis, I hear you, and recognize the difficulty.

I know nothing of Australia's legal system, but the way ours works is this.
The CPS can get the assistance of the police, but this is actually a good
thing, because cops know what they legally can do and what they can't do.
All the police can do is take action if you decide to introduce the
intruders to Mister Twelve Gage.  The police cannot come into your home
unless they have a warrant for your arrest or a search warrant, or if you do
something illegal at the scene.  Telling the CPS to politely fuck off is not
a crime.  Warrants are hard to get under the circumstances usually
associated with family matters and pet matters.  It is a different story of
course if you invite the CPS  or the animal nazis from the SPCA into your
home (always a bad idea).  

The critical difference is in one case you are the defendant, in the other,
your are the plaintiff.  In the US, we have repeatedly demonstrated that in
court there is a huge advantage for the defendant.  Never was this more
apparent than in 1995 when the sports guy OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder
in the face of overwhelming evidence, meticulously chiseled away piece by
piece, by a highly paid and highly competent defense team.  Defendants have
a big advantage.

If you tell the SPCA or the CPS to go to a judge for a warrant, they
probably will not even bother, because judges require actual evidence.  If
you demand a warrant, you are the defendant.  If you allow the SPCA to take
your dog, or the CPS to take your children, you become the plaintiff and
they are now the defendant, which means it is YOUR burden of proof to show
that you didn't spank your kid or your pet is NOT a bulldog, or prove that
you are innocent of whatever it is they decide you did, and they may not
even tell you what it is.  That burden of proof can be very heavy.  Don't
take it up voluntarily.

My guess is the Campbells didn't know their constitutional rights.  They
were, after all, promoting a governmental system in which there are no
individual rights.  They don't strike me as rocket scientist material.
Likely the CPS coerced them into giving up their own kids.  They will be
lucky if they ever get those kids back.

spike





From micheals at msu.edu  Sun Jan 18 04:58:46 2009
From: micheals at msu.edu (sam micheal)
Date: Sat, 17 Jan 2009 23:58:46 -0500
Subject: [ExI] consciousness vs intuition and insight
Message-ID: <4972B706.4040707@msu.edu>

ACOMA -- A COnscious MAchine

Can it be done?

Can it be designed by me?

Sam Micheal

 

It's 'official'; I'm 'nuts'. I have been officially told by a university 
professor of computer science: "This problem is too big for you Sam." 
Really? Is that so? Are you 1000% sure?

 

As a person 'in love' (understatement) with systems science, physics, 
and AI, I have taken so many courses from engineering disciplines -- I 
have lost count -- where and when.. I DO remember a computer vision 
course I took. I DO remember some basic precepts. I DO remember how we 
know almost nothing about scene recognition (this was about 15 years ago 
so perhaps we know a little more now). But if you actually READ my 
proposal, it says NOTHING about dependency on scene recognition. In 
fact, it depends not one IOTA on anything 'in development'.

 

This is the 'beauty' of our current system. "Instead of pursuing this 
avenue of investigation, /which I doubt you have any real experience 
in/.." [italics added] he continues to suggest I restrict myself to more 
'tame' and approachable areas in computer science. I thanked him for his 
traditional concern. But his 'concern' was itself dismissive. His 
department is focused on computer science education. Why should they 
care about conscious machines? "They would have done it by now if they 
could." (He voiced almost the same sentiment in the same letter.) Wow; 
what a 'revelation'. And all this to say without actually reading my 
proposal.

 

Perspective; perspective; perspective. Read Modern Heuristics by 
Michalewicz. If you can understand that, you're smart. If you can apply 
it, you're smarter. Now, I'm not saying I'm /that/ smart. ;) But I am 
saying I have some insights about the problem. Key word: insights. 
What's another key word? Intuition. Now, let me review a recent 
conversation with my mother about consciousness..

 

"The reason AI people have not developed conscious machines is because 
they have focused on intelligence NOT consciousness. And they have made 
the critical conceptual error in thinking that consciousness is 
dependent on immature technologies like computer vision. It is NOT. I 
contend consciousness is /physical/; we can understand it physically. 
However, much more elusive are concepts like intuition and inspiration. 
I contend we will develop conscious machines /way before/ we will 
develop machines with intuition and inspiration."

 

My design is more than just 'physical'; it is information dependent. 
There is a thing in my design called a rule-base. Is this the same thing 
as a database? Is it constructed with data mining? Maybe. Maybe not. I 
try to define some general specifications. I believe I have a construct 
that is 'rich' enough (diverse and sophisticated enough) to at least 
mimic consciousness. And I try to provide much more than consciousness. 
I design structures that will assist intelligence and self-awareness. 
Hopefully, these will enhance consciousness. The idea is this: I think 
it is difficult to create consciousness from scratch -- but not 
impossible. If we can create a device that is minimally aware and also 
give it some capabilities: intelligence, self-awareness (via model), and 
some capacity for visualization (which to me is Very important), we may 
achieve what most have said is impossible -- machine consciousness. My 
construct is perhaps too dependent on visualization. My original 
specification exceeded the current technology (1 mega bits cubed). 
Because that is impossible by current standards, I had to cut that down 
by a factor of one million. Can the thing still be self-aware with 
limited visualization capability? I don't know. But it's worth trying.

 

It's certainly worth more than "This problem is too big for you Sam."

 

Sam Micheal, 17/JAN/2009

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090117/16153e64/attachment.html>

From eschatoon at gmail.com  Sun Jan 18 07:56:04 2009
From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 08:56:04 +0100
Subject: [ExI] I'm not sure I understand..please enlighten me.
In-Reply-To: <62c14240901171033r3615d2b4s4939e1d5aa29e19@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.58.1232191129.12759.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<587833.33537.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<1fa8c3b90901170654y502ef8aexb35993d5955eefb8@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240901171033r3615d2b4s4939e1d5aa29e19@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90901172356x7af03314mdd8e7dcf5fadf680@mail.gmail.com>

Mike: following Einstein, spacetime is more fundamental than 3D space
at a given time (different observers would not agree on simultaneity).
Nature can be defined as all that exists in spacetime. I hope not to
see the Sun going nova in my lifetime, but the event "the sun goes
nova" exists in spacetime (if our descendants will not be able to do
something about it). All future entities and events exist in
spacetime.

"once humanity is uplifted (by whatever means) there will be no
purpose for transhumanism as group." Well, once women were allowed to
vote, there was no purpose for the social movement in favor of voting
rights for women. But they repurposed and moved on other feminist
issues, and their struggle continues today. Similarly, transhumanism
is about leaving all limits behind, and I don't think we will be able
to do that anytime soon. There will always be new frontiers to explore
and new limits to overcome.

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 9:54 AM, Eschatoon Magic <eschatoon at gmail.com> wrote:
>> Tom, I think a belief in the "supernatural" is hardly compatible with
>> transhumanism, or with any system of thought based on the scientific
>> method. To me the "supernatural" does not exist as a matter of
>> definition: we define "nature" as all that exists, hence nothing
>> outside of nature exists. This is grammar, not philosophy.
>
> I'd say this is semantics.  If nature is all that exists, then what of
> the future?  Computronium, as commonly conceived on this list, does
> not exist - is it outside nature?  Do we hope to bring it into
> existence?  Is nature inclusive of all possible futures?  Are we
> defining nature to include multiple dimensions of space-time?  If we
> stretch the definition beyond it's commonly understood usage, it
> becomes nearly meaningless.  If we accept the general SL1-level
> understanding of nature as the concept associated with the term, then
> the ideas of SL3+ become supernatural by definition.  By this point we
> are discussing the denominations of transhumanism as surely as
> Protestant and Methodist are denominations of Christianity.
>
>> Transhumanists also think that everything in existence can in
>> principle, and should, be studied by science and improved (or built
>> from scratch) by engineering.
>
> By that definition, was Pythagoras a transhumanist?
>
>> Having said this, we should bear in mind that reality may well be much
>> more complex than we currently know and imagine, and that in this huge
>> complexity there may well be room for things that could seem
>> "supernatural", including an afterlife and one or more Gods. I am
>> referring to Clarke's third law and Shakespeare "there are more things
>> in heavens and earth...". But the wonderful things that may well exist
>> in the present or future universe are not supernatural, just beyond
>> our current understanding.
>
> Yes, and any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable
> from magic.  Wielding that advantage over the less advanced raises
> morality questions.  To borrow an example from SciFi's SG1 series: the
> Goa'uld posing as Egyptian gods was wrong, while the Asgard as Norse
> gods presented themselves to be benevolent protectors.  Both lied to
> their naive human wards.
>
> I do agree with you (Eschatoon) that transhumanism should be defined
> in a way that clearly reinforces the goal of reaching higher.
> However, if the goal is only to exceed Humanism - then once humanity
> is uplifted (by whatever means) there will be no purpose for
> transhumanism as group.
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
aka Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jan 18 07:59:30 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 01:59:30 -0600
Subject: [ExI] they're everywhere
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090118015857.0240fb50@satx.rr.com>


<http://www.change.org/ideas/view/save_handmade_toys_from_the_cpsia>

In 2007, large toy manufacturers who outsource their production to 
China and other developing countries violated the public's trust. 
They were selling toys containing dangerously high lead content, 
unsafe small parts, and chemicals that made kids sick.

The United States Congress rightly recognized that the Consumer 
Products Safety Commission (CPSC) lacked the authority and staffing 
to prevent dangerous toys from being imported into the US. So, they 
passed the Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act (CPSIA) in August 
2008. Among other things, the CPSIA bans lead and phthalates in 
children's products, mandates third party testing and certification, 
and requires manufacturers of all goods for children under the age of 
12, to permanently label each item with a date and batch number.

All of these changes will be fairly easy for large, multinational 
companies to comply with. Large manufacturers who make thousands of 
units of each item have very little incremental cost to pay for 
testing and updating their systems to include batch labels. Small 
businesses however, will likely be driven out of business by the 
costs of mandatory testing, to the tune of as much as $4,000 or more 
per item. And the few larger manufacturers who still employ workers 
in the United States face increased costs to comply with the CPSIA, 
even though American-made toys had nothing to do with the toy safety 
problems of 2007.

Anyone who produces or sells any of the following new or used items 
will be required to comply with the law: toys, books, clothing, art, 
educational supplies, materials for the learning disabled, bicycles, 
and more. Any uncertified item intended for children under the age of 
12 will be considered contraband after February 10, 2009. It will be 
illegal to sell or give these items away to charities, and the 
government will require their destruction or permanent disposal, 
resulting in millions of tons of unnecessary waste, and placing an 
enormous strain on our landfills.

There is a clear disconnect between the sweeping nature of this law, 
and the narrow range of products that were problematic in 2007. The 
CPSIA applies standards that were put in place in reaction to the 
sale of toys contaminated with lead paint and toxic plastics. Rather 
than focus on these materials, this law places a guilty until proven 
innocent mentality on all children's product producers by imposing 
mandatory testing and certification, and in the process will kill an 
entire industry.  



From stathisp at gmail.com  Sun Jan 18 08:31:28 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:31:28 +1100
Subject: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
In-Reply-To: <EFFC09B940324B21928A299E6B799F0F@spike>
References: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike>
	<f21c22e30901170056t58f9b412rbf8487c6676df3b8@mail.gmail.com>
	<2d6187670901170126i75729a1pf955858162e464b2@mail.gmail.com>
	<08E65488B2AD49EF92552DE1CDCA73B3@spike>
	<f21c22e30901171859h2550230av7cabd98af868fc51@mail.gmail.com>
	<EFFC09B940324B21928A299E6B799F0F@spike>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30901180031q29e24a3ep8b9acfe08f771439@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/18 spike <spike66 at att.net>:

> I know nothing of Australia's legal system, but the way ours works is this.
> The CPS can get the assistance of the police, but this is actually a good
> thing, because cops know what they legally can do and what they can't do.
> All the police can do is take action if you decide to introduce the
> intruders to Mister Twelve Gage.  The police cannot come into your home
> unless they have a warrant for your arrest or a search warrant, or if you do
> something illegal at the scene.  Telling the CPS to politely fuck off is not
> a crime.  Warrants are hard to get under the circumstances usually
> associated with family matters and pet matters.  It is a different story of
> course if you invite the CPS  or the animal nazis from the SPCA into your
> home (always a bad idea).

You're implying that a person is more likely to let CPS or SPCA enter
their home without asking "do I have to?" than they are to let the
police do so, where it seems to me it would be the other way around.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun Jan 18 12:40:02 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:40:02 +0100
Subject: [ExI] I'm not sure I understand..please enlighten me.
In-Reply-To: <587833.33537.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
References: <mailman.58.1232191129.12759.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<587833.33537.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20901180440s7655568o3134c40e8b047f4f@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Tom Nowell <nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> On the other side, to be religious and anti-transhumanist is to be aware that humanity can change itself, and to be scared of this. For Christian & Islamic fundamentalists who treat writings over a thousand year old as the sole source of moral authority, modern bio- and neuro- technologies offer uncharted territory which their source of guidance offers little help with. For those who see altering humanity as "playing god" and a hubristic act, there is a fear that some awful future awaits if we experiment too far.

I wonder whether there is any actual anti-transhumanist muslim
literature, of if we sometimes put together christian and muslim
fundamentalists just by reflex... :-/

> I may have misread Anna's point, but I thought she was enquiring as to why the WTA/H+ are changing their public image and looking at revising their declaration in order to encourage discourse with the general public and with religious people. I believe it is because the H+ leadership would like to encourage people to see emerging technology that affects humans in a positive way and to encourage the development of these in a way that will benefit humanity in the near-term.

This is however a very misleading idea, since most people would take a
"Humanity Plus" self-description as irredeemably arrogant and
conceited, and few will see an obvious contrast between the idea that
"Man must be overcome" and the specieist undertones involved in such
naming.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From spike66 at att.net  Sun Jan 18 16:41:42 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 08:41:42 -0800
Subject: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30901180031q29e24a3ep8b9acfe08f771439@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike><f21c22e30901170056t58f9b412rbf8487c6676df3b8@mail.gmail.com><2d6187670901170126i75729a1pf955858162e464b2@mail.gmail.com><08E65488B2AD49EF92552DE1CDCA73B3@spike><f21c22e30901171859h2550230av7cabd98af868fc51@mail.gmail.com><EFFC09B940324B21928A299E6B799F0F@spike>
	<f21c22e30901180031q29e24a3ep8b9acfe08f771439@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <85FB3D1214BD447BB29689C892295540@spike>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of 
> Stathis Papaioannou
... 
> > It is a different story of course if you invite the CPS  or 
> the animal 
> > nazis from the SPCA into your home (always a bad idea).
> 
> You're implying that a person is more likely to let CPS or 
> SPCA enter their home without asking "do I have to?" than 
> they are to let the police do so, where it seems to me it 
> would be the other way around.
> 
> 
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou


Ja.  The cops are better trained at what they can do and what they can't do
than the social workers, or at least they are better at staying within their
boundaries.  Another possiblility is that they talk to the citizen first, to
get a feel for how much the citizen knows about their rights.  If they sense
they know nothing, perhaps the cops misbehave as much as the others, but I
have never personally witnessed it from that point of view.  All the cops I
have ever talked to stayed within their legal bounds and behaved in a most
civil manner.  

We have a TV channel over here called Animal Planet, which is usually pretty
good, nature stuff, etc.  But they have a program about the SPCA going
around rescuing pets.  They dress like cops, throw their weight around in
ways the real police will not.  They have a camerahuman follow them around,
recording everything.  This program actually shows the SPCA routinely doing
illegal search and seizures.  Most appalling is this.  They are perhaps
betting that the cases they violate will be unable to raise the kind of cash
necessary to sue the SPCA, or even if they had the money they wouldn't be
willing.

spike







From jan.vandenbos at gmail.com  Sun Jan 18 08:55:39 2009
From: jan.vandenbos at gmail.com (Jan Vandenbos)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 00:55:39 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Film: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
In-Reply-To: <200812021454.mB2Es88K001415@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <5E433A2406CB456ABE8720AE4DADCA93@GinaSony>
	<200812021454.mB2Es88K001415@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <88cab4160901180055l2942bd1fx4a1fe188b959736e@mail.gmail.com>

Finally saw this movie (The Curious Case of Benjamin Button) - I'm not
really into sappy movies, but I quite enjoyed this one. Reminds me a bit of
the Time Travelers Wife.  I like these stories with interesting, big picture
plot lines.

Smiles,

JV


On Tue, Dec 2, 2008 at 6:27 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
> ________________________________
>
> On Behalf Of Gina Miller
>        Subject: Re: [ExI] Film: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button"
>
>
> ...When I first saw the preview I thought of Mearth from Mork and Mindy.
> Remember him, he was their half human half alien baby and aged in reverse
> (because that's how they are on Ork!). Played by Jonathan winters, so
> funny.
> ...Gina "Nanogirl" Miller
>
>
> Of all the comedy from the 70s, the Mork and Mindy show after they added
> Jonathan Winters takes the prize.  It's over 30 years ago, but the comedy
> aged well.  Those shows are wet-your-diapers funny, seeing Winters and a
> young pre-cocaine Robin Williams bounce off of each other.  Most of the
> scripts are ad-lib, which explains why costar Pam Dawber doesn't seem to
> know what to do.  She pretty much just watches those two in amazement while
> struggling to not fall on the floor laughing at the silliness.  Do try to
> find tapes or reruns.
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090118/f20a6a39/attachment.html>

From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Sun Jan 18 17:27:43 2009
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 10:27:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] consciousness vs intuition and insight
In-Reply-To: <4972B706.4040707@msu.edu>
References: <4972B706.4040707@msu.edu>
Message-ID: <4973668F.90802@comcast.net>


Sam,

Welcome to the 'nuts' crowd. I bet everyone on this list is considered 
to be 'nuts' by lots of (but not all) people. And of course, we all know 
we're not 'nuts' right?

I completely agree with you that we'll understand consciousness before 
we understand higher cognitive things like emotion, intuition and 
insight. But from some of the other things you say, I suspect we have 
different ideas about what consciousness is.

On the idea of consciousness, I'm in these camps:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6
http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/7

Could you concisely state just what you believe about consciousness and 
what you believe can be done?

Upward,

Brent Allsop



sam micheal wrote:
>
> ACOMA ? A COnscious MAchine
>
> Can it be done?
>
> Can it be designed by me?
>
> Sam Micheal
>
> It?s ?official?; I?m ?nuts?. I have been officially told by a 
> university professor of computer science: ?This problem is too big for 
> you Sam.? Really? Is that so? Are you 1000% sure?
>
> As a person ?in love? (understatement) with systems science, physics, 
> and AI, I have taken so many courses from engineering disciplines ? I 
> have lost count ? where and when.. I DO remember a computer vision 
> course I took. I DO remember some basic precepts. I DO remember how we 
> know almost nothing about scene recognition (this was about 15 years 
> ago so perhaps we know a little more now). But if you actually READ my 
> proposal, it says NOTHING about dependency on scene recognition. In 
> fact, it depends not one IOTA on anything ?in development?.
>
> This is the ?beauty? of our current system. ?Instead of pursuing this 
> avenue of investigation, /which I doubt you have any real experience 
> in/..? [italics added] he continues to suggest I restrict myself to 
> more ?tame? and approachable areas in computer science. I thanked him 
> for his traditional concern. But his ?concern? was itself dismissive. 
> His department is focused on computer science education. Why should 
> they care about conscious machines? ?They would have done it by now if 
> they could.? (He voiced almost the same sentiment in the same letter.) 
> Wow; what a ?revelation?. And all this to say without actually reading 
> my proposal.
>
> Perspective; perspective; perspective. Read Modern Heuristics by 
> Michalewicz. If you can understand that, you?re smart. If you can 
> apply it, you?re smarter. Now, I?m not saying I?m /that/ smart. ;) But 
> I am saying I have some insights about the problem. Key word: 
> insights. What?s another key word? Intuition. Now, let me review a 
> recent conversation with my mother about consciousness..
>
> ?The reason AI people have not developed conscious machines is because 
> they have focused on intelligence NOT consciousness. And they have 
> made the critical conceptual error in thinking that consciousness is 
> dependent on immature technologies like computer vision. It is NOT. I 
> contend consciousness is /physical/; we can understand it physically. 
> However, much more elusive are concepts like intuition and 
> inspiration. I contend we will develop conscious machines /way before/ 
> we will develop machines with intuition and inspiration.?
>
> My design is more than just ?physical?; it is information dependent. 
> There is a thing in my design called a rule-base. Is this the same 
> thing as a database? Is it constructed with data mining? Maybe. Maybe 
> not. I try to define some general specifications. I believe I have a 
> construct that is ?rich? enough (diverse and sophisticated enough) to 
> at least mimic consciousness. And I try to provide much more than 
> consciousness. I design structures that will assist intelligence and 
> self-awareness. Hopefully, these will enhance consciousness. The idea 
> is this: I think it is difficult to create consciousness from scratch 
> ? but not impossible. If we can create a device that is minimally 
> aware and also give it some capabilities: intelligence, self-awareness 
> (via model), and some capacity for visualization (which to me is Very 
> important), we may achieve what most have said is impossible ? machine 
> consciousness. My construct is perhaps too dependent on visualization. 
> My original specification exceeded the current technology (1 mega bits 
> cubed). Because that is impossible by current standards, I had to cut 
> that down by a factor of one million. Can the thing still be 
> self-aware with limited visualization capability? I don?t know. But 
> it?s worth trying.
>
> It?s certainly worth more than ?This problem is too big for you Sam.?
>
> Sam Micheal, 17/JAN/2009
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>   




From msd001 at gmail.com  Sun Jan 18 18:09:23 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:09:23 -0500
Subject: [ExI] I'm not sure I understand..please enlighten me.
In-Reply-To: <1fa8c3b90901172356x7af03314mdd8e7dcf5fadf680@mail.gmail.com>
References: <mailman.58.1232191129.12759.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<587833.33537.qm@web27004.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<1fa8c3b90901170654y502ef8aexb35993d5955eefb8@mail.gmail.com>
	<62c14240901171033r3615d2b4s4939e1d5aa29e19@mail.gmail.com>
	<1fa8c3b90901172356x7af03314mdd8e7dcf5fadf680@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240901181009ybf8d634m64676cc5c30f55fe@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 2:56 AM, Eschatoon Magic <eschatoon at gmail.com> wrote:
> Mike: following Einstein, spacetime is more fundamental than 3D space
> at a given time (different observers would not agree on simultaneity).
> Nature can be defined as all that exists in spacetime. I hope not to
> see the Sun going nova in my lifetime, but the event "the sun goes
> nova" exists in spacetime (if our descendants will not be able to do
> something about it). All future entities and events exist in
> spacetime.

Absolutely.  My point was about how the word is used by the majority.
However, I agree that spacetime as 3D+Time is not really enough to
adequately express the idea of multiple potential futures.  But this
is really only a confusion of reference whether one is inside or
outside some region of the system being examined.

> "once humanity is uplifted (by whatever means) there will be no
> purpose for transhumanism as group." Well, once women were allowed to
> vote, there was no purpose for the social movement in favor of voting
> rights for women. But they repurposed and moved on other feminist
> issues, and their struggle continues today. Similarly, transhumanism
> is about leaving all limits behind, and I don't think we will be able
> to do that anytime soon. There will always be new frontiers to explore
> and new limits to overcome.

I am not going to propose another definition for transhumanism, since
there are already so many.  I think a too strongly worded definition
is limiting (such as your suffrage example) and a too weekly worded
definition would lake direction.  (ex: "betterists: seek to make stuff
 better than it is currently")  Anyway, I'm just throwing my thoughts
out here  :)


From msd001 at gmail.com  Sun Jan 18 18:30:11 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 13:30:11 -0500
Subject: [ExI] consciousness vs intuition and insight
In-Reply-To: <4972B706.4040707@msu.edu>
References: <4972B706.4040707@msu.edu>
Message-ID: <62c14240901181030v1a73e26cy546a47188c383e7f@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:58 PM, sam micheal <micheals at msu.edu> wrote:
> It's certainly worth more than "This problem is too big for you Sam."

"You'll shoot your eye out, kid."


From sparkle_robot at yahoo.com  Sun Jan 18 20:56:17 2009
From: sparkle_robot at yahoo.com (Anne Corwin)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 12:56:17 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] I'm not sure I understand..please enlighten me.
In-Reply-To: <62c14240901181009ybf8d634m64676cc5c30f55fe@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <798445.17303.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com>

Mike Dougherty wrote: 
> I am not going to propose another definition for
> transhumanism, since
> there are already so many.

I'll propose one, just for fun: transhumanism is a set of loosely interwoven beliefs, predilections, and tendencies that ultimately lead to endless arguments on mailing lists over the definition of "transhumanism". 

:P

- Anne


      


From msd001 at gmail.com  Sun Jan 18 21:34:15 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:34:15 -0500
Subject: [ExI] I'm not sure I understand..please enlighten me.
In-Reply-To: <798445.17303.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <62c14240901181009ybf8d634m64676cc5c30f55fe@mail.gmail.com>
	<798445.17303.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240901181334v4fe5fb92h4c26c7f6d028c76f@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 3:56 PM, Anne Corwin <sparkle_robot at yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'll propose one, just for fun: transhumanism is a set of loosely interwoven beliefs, predilections, and tendencies that ultimately lead to endless arguments on mailing lists over the definition of "transhumanism".

I love self-referential definition.  So much better that it's humorous as well.


From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com  Sun Jan 18 22:42:54 2009
From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:42:54 -0800
Subject: [ExI] I'm not sure I understand..please enlighten me.
In-Reply-To: <798445.17303.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <62c14240901181009ybf8d634m64676cc5c30f55fe@mail.gmail.com>
	<798445.17303.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <c49b1db60901181442r5b876c98j39e161a47bfb64f8@mail.gmail.com>

On 1/18/09, Anne Corwin <sparkle_robot at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> Mike Dougherty wrote:
> > I am not going to propose another definition for
> > transhumanism, since
> > there are already so many.
>
> I'll propose one, just for fun: transhumanism is a set of loosely
> interwoven beliefs, predilections, and tendencies that ultimately lead to
> endless arguments on mailing lists over the definition of "transhumanism".
>
> :P
>
> - Anne


I think this is sort of like that science is what scientists do, so
therefore transhumanism is what transhumanists do.  And, ergo, religion is
what religious people do.  So we here we have the answer to many of our
fundamental questions, and that is that they weren't all that important in
the first place.

*Kevin*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090118/7fc11c56/attachment.html>

From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com  Sun Jan 18 22:53:35 2009
From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 14:53:35 -0800
Subject: [ExI] they're everywhere
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090118015857.0240fb50@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090118015857.0240fb50@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c49b1db60901181453t6a09829cs87619024be845e42@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry guy, but all of your appeals to emotion really causes me to distrust
your message.  Could you explain, again please, why is it that small
businesses shouldn't have to meet safety standards?

Thanks,

*Kevin*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090118/67d2db8c/attachment.html>

From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jan 18 23:09:11 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:09:11 -0600
Subject: [ExI] they're everywhere
In-Reply-To: <c49b1db60901181453t6a09829cs87619024be845e42@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090118015857.0240fb50@satx.rr.com>
	<c49b1db60901181453t6a09829cs87619024be845e42@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090118170855.022e2638@satx.rr.com>


>Sorry guy, but all of your appeals to emotion really causes me to 
>distrust your message.  Could you explain, again please, why is it 
>that small businesses shouldn't have to meet safety standards?

There is a clear disconnect between the sweeping nature of this law, 
and the narrow range of products that were problematic in 2007. The 
CPSIA applies standards that were put in place in reaction to the 
sale of toys contaminated with lead paint and toxic plastics. Rather 
than focus on these materials, this law places a guilty until proven 
innocent mentality on all children's product producers by imposing 
mandatory testing and certification, and in the process will kill an 
entire industry.



From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com  Sun Jan 18 23:32:44 2009
From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 15:32:44 -0800
Subject: [ExI] they're everywhere
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090118170855.022e2638@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090118015857.0240fb50@satx.rr.com>
	<c49b1db60901181453t6a09829cs87619024be845e42@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090118170855.022e2638@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c49b1db60901181532w2ec52a3dx5efbd34328065c0b@mail.gmail.com>

On 1/18/09, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
> Sorry guy, but all of your appeals to emotion really causes me to distrust
>> your message.  Could you explain, again please, why is it that small
>> businesses shouldn't have to meet safety standards?
>>
>
> There is a clear disconnect between the sweeping nature of this law, and
> the narrow range of products that were problematic in 2007. The CPSIA
> applies standards that were put in place in reaction to the sale of toys
> contaminated with lead paint and toxic plastics. Rather than focus on these
> materials, this law places a guilty until proven innocent mentality on all
> children's product producers by imposing mandatory testing and
> certification, and in the process will kill an entire industry.
>

So, small businesses shouldn't have to meet safety standards because they
might go out of business?  You might have thought it cute to just copy/paste
your post like this, but it doesn't help that it doesn't answer the
question.

There's an exercise that students are taught in college that says try to
argue for the other side, become devil's advocate for a while.  Politics
isn't a one-sided business between the good guys and bad guys, but between
people with conflicting interests.  There's no decision made that doesn't
benefit some people while detrimenting others, so it doesn't surprise me in
the least that another law is going to harm the interests of many people,
the question is what is best for the nation as a whole.  And you haven't
even come close to answering that.

Sorry, but I thought I should at least explain why I don't find your post
pursuasive rather than keep quiet.

*Kevin*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090118/a05e98f1/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Jan 18 23:35:37 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 23:35:37 +0000
Subject: [ExI] they're everywhere
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090118170855.022e2638@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090118015857.0240fb50@satx.rr.com>
	<c49b1db60901181453t6a09829cs87619024be845e42@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090118170855.022e2638@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0901181535p558e0790m96899929f8b2c7c1@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 11:09 PM, Damien Broderick wrote:
> There is a clear disconnect between the sweeping nature of this law, and the
> narrow range of products that were problematic in 2007. The CPSIA applies
> standards that were put in place in reaction to the sale of toys
> contaminated with lead paint and toxic plastics. Rather than focus on these
> materials, this law places a guilty until proven innocent mentality on all
> children's product producers by imposing mandatory testing and
> certification, and in the process will kill an entire industry.
>

It's all part of the plan.  The New World Order doesn't want small
independent businesses. The people will either work for the government
(incl. State subsidiaries) or huge quasi-government bodies. The rest
will get handouts from the government.

BillK


From kanzure at gmail.com  Mon Jan 19 00:14:12 2009
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:14:12 -0600
Subject: [ExI] they're everywhere
In-Reply-To: <c49b1db60901181532w2ec52a3dx5efbd34328065c0b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090118015857.0240fb50@satx.rr.com>
	<c49b1db60901181453t6a09829cs87619024be845e42@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090118170855.022e2638@satx.rr.com>
	<c49b1db60901181532w2ec52a3dx5efbd34328065c0b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55ad6af70901181614v390cf8f9w315331a759241295@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 5:32 PM, Kevin H <kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 1/18/09, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Sorry guy, but all of your appeals to emotion really causes me to
>>> distrust your message.  Could you explain, again please, why is it that
>>> small businesses shouldn't have to meet safety standards?
>>
>> There is a clear disconnect between the sweeping nature of this law, and
>> the narrow range of products that were problematic in 2007. The CPSIA
>> applies standards that were put in place in reaction to the sale of toys
>> contaminated with lead paint and toxic plastics. Rather than focus on these
>> materials, this law places a guilty until proven innocent mentality on all
>> children's product producers by imposing mandatory testing and
>> certification, and in the process will kill an entire industry.
>
> So, small businesses shouldn't have to meet safety standards because they
> might go out of business?  You might have thought it cute to just copy/paste
> your post like this, but it doesn't help that it doesn't answer the
> question.

I don't see where this says anything about small businesses not having
to meet safety standards. This article is talking about the high costs
of the standards testing, which is oriented more towards high volume,
high money businesses.

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507


From moulton at moulton.com  Mon Jan 19 00:48:30 2009
From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 16:48:30 -0800
Subject: [ExI] they're everywhere
In-Reply-To: <55ad6af70901181614v390cf8f9w315331a759241295@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090118015857.0240fb50@satx.rr.com>
	<c49b1db60901181453t6a09829cs87619024be845e42@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090118170855.022e2638@satx.rr.com>
	<c49b1db60901181532w2ec52a3dx5efbd34328065c0b@mail.gmail.com>
	<55ad6af70901181614v390cf8f9w315331a759241295@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1232326110.12575.2151.camel@hayek>


Here is what they are saying in Florida about books and CPSIA

http://www.news4jax.com/news/18498895/detail.html#-

I have no further comment at this time.

Fred



From spike66 at att.net  Mon Jan 19 01:45:03 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 17:45:03 -0800
Subject: [ExI] drugs again
In-Reply-To: <798445.17303.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
References: <62c14240901181009ybf8d634m64676cc5c30f55fe@mail.gmail.com>
	<798445.17303.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <96A09C8578AC461E94EFF5BE57A5A385@spike>


Since the topic of drug abuse has been discussed in this forum in the past,
I do hope everyone here will take two minutes to view this video of some
important research using spiders and commonly abused drugs:

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5ab_1232299044





From msd001 at gmail.com  Mon Jan 19 01:44:03 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 20:44:03 -0500
Subject: [ExI] they're everywhere
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0901181535p558e0790m96899929f8b2c7c1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090118015857.0240fb50@satx.rr.com>
	<c49b1db60901181453t6a09829cs87619024be845e42@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090118170855.022e2638@satx.rr.com>
	<ee50357e0901181535p558e0790m96899929f8b2c7c1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <62c14240901181744m42778a0q581e0a37b1ad3608@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 6:35 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> It's all part of the plan.  The New World Order doesn't want small
> independent businesses. The people will either work for the government
> (incl. State subsidiaries) or huge quasi-government bodies. The rest
> will get handouts from the government.

The NWO will be at your door Tuesday to "remove" you.  There is to no
room for your kind* in the NWO.

Have a nice day.


* your kind:  self-aware intellectual with their own opinion.


From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Mon Jan 19 01:52:59 2009
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:52:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] drugs again
In-Reply-To: <96A09C8578AC461E94EFF5BE57A5A385@spike>
References: <62c14240901181009ybf8d634m64676cc5c30f55fe@mail.gmail.com>
	<798445.17303.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<96A09C8578AC461E94EFF5BE57A5A385@spike>
Message-ID: <2d6187670901181752q50302bc3l673aab7ed69a4e61@mail.gmail.com>

I had absolutely no idea spiders had little cars to drive in and even tiny
little guns to point at each other.  And considering the average number of
spiders per square mile of the planet, it's probably just a matter of time
until they engage in an arms build up and even acquire the bomb.  And so the
gov't must get all the spiders hooked on crack to save humanity!

John  : )


On Sun, Jan 18, 2009 at 6:45 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
> Since the topic of drug abuse has been discussed in this forum in the past,
> I do hope everyone here will take two minutes to view this video of some
> important research using spiders and commonly abused drugs:
>
> http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=5ab_1232299044
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090118/24698d7a/attachment.html>

From sjatkins at mac.com  Mon Jan 19 02:00:30 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 18:00:30 -0800
Subject: [ExI] drugs again
In-Reply-To: <2d6187670901181752q50302bc3l673aab7ed69a4e61@mail.gmail.com>
References: <62c14240901181009ybf8d634m64676cc5c30f55fe@mail.gmail.com>
	<798445.17303.qm@web56503.mail.re3.yahoo.com>
	<96A09C8578AC461E94EFF5BE57A5A385@spike>
	<2d6187670901181752q50302bc3l673aab7ed69a4e61@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4973DEBE.7020001@mac.com>

John Grigg wrote:
> I had absolutely no idea spiders had little cars to drive in and even 
> tiny little guns to point at each other.  And considering the average 
> number of spiders per square mile of the planet, it's probably just a 
> matter of time until they engage in an arms build up and even acquire 
> the bomb.  And so the gov't must get all the spiders hooked on crack to 
> save humanity! 

Naw, you've gotta turn them into stoners, man!  Then they be cool. 
Maybe die off because they don't get off their lazy asses.  Maybe get 
the munchies and eat everything but no popping caps or polluting the 
planet with all those itty bitty car, man.  :-)

- samantha



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Mon Jan 19 02:04:06 2009
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 19:04:06 -0700
Subject: [ExI] they're everywhere (thrift shops)
In-Reply-To: <c49b1db60901181532w2ec52a3dx5efbd34328065c0b@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090118015857.0240fb50@satx.rr.com>
	<c49b1db60901181453t6a09829cs87619024be845e42@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090118170855.022e2638@satx.rr.com>
	<c49b1db60901181532w2ec52a3dx5efbd34328065c0b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1232331009_125232@S4.cableone.net>

At 04:32 PM 1/18/2009, Kevin wrote:

snip

>There's no decision made that doesn't benefit some people while 
>detrimenting others, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that 
>another law is going to harm the interests of many people, the 
>question is what is best for the nation as a whole.

This was a poorly thought out law.  It's not a big burden when you 
test a lot from China for Walmart.  That's what they were thinking about.

One of the effects of this law is to slam poor people who tend to buy 
clothes for their kids at thrift shops--Goodwill, Salvation Army and 
the like.  There is no possible way a thrift shop can test clothing, 
the cost is hundreds of times the value of the item.

In anticipation of the law going into effect, many (most? all?) of 
those places have quit taking donations of children's clothes, toys etc.

The potential harm is hard to quantify, but it seems to me to be very 
small, particularly with clothes.  The cost to the very limited 
resources of the poor is substantial.

Keith



From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com  Mon Jan 19 06:15:17 2009
From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H)
Date: Sun, 18 Jan 2009 22:15:17 -0800
Subject: [ExI] they're everywhere (thrift shops)
In-Reply-To: <1232331009_125232@S4.cableone.net>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090118015857.0240fb50@satx.rr.com>
	<c49b1db60901181453t6a09829cs87619024be845e42@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090118170855.022e2638@satx.rr.com>
	<c49b1db60901181532w2ec52a3dx5efbd34328065c0b@mail.gmail.com>
	<1232331009_125232@S4.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <c49b1db60901182215i711c927ap32a854737e7e1a43@mail.gmail.com>

On 1/18/09, hkhenson <hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>
> At 04:32 PM 1/18/2009, Kevin wrote:
>
> snip
>
> There's no decision made that doesn't benefit some people while
>> detrimenting others, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that another law
>> is going to harm the interests of many people, the question is what is best
>> for the nation as a whole.
>>
>
> This was a poorly thought out law.  It's not a big burden when you test a
> lot from China for Walmart.  That's what they were thinking about.


I think where I'm coming from is either these safety standards are important
and need to be followed, or they do not.  I mean, are you proposing that we
single out China, or Walmart, or mass production, and allege that products
from smaller or native businesses are "safe"?  Is it only certain *kinds* of
products?

I don't know a whole lot about the issues involved and, after reading the
original post, I'm not much more informed.  These are the kinds of questions
I ask myself whenever I hear something like this on some political proposal
or another, but usually keep quiet about.  It just surprises me that not
everyone thinks this way.

I understand if you guys are saying that the law is overextended to products
that we don't have to be concerned about safety.  For instance, do we really
have to worry about getting toxins from our clothes?  But, in the cases
where we *do* have to be concerned about safety like children's toys, it
doesn't make any sense that we'll require safety standards only if it isn't
a great burden to the manufacturer.  If we are at all concerned about
safety, then we should be concerned whether or not the product comes from a
large business or a small business, or from a foreign business or a native
business.

One of the effects of this law is to slam poor people who tend to buy
> clothes for their kids at thrift shops--Goodwill, Salvation Army and the
> like.  There is no possible way a thrift shop can test clothing, the cost is
> hundreds of times the value of the item.


I don't have any answers.  How can it be that expensive to test whether or
not your products are safe?


> The potential harm is hard to quantify, but it seems to me to be very
> small, particularly with clothes.  The cost to the very limited resources of
> the poor is substantial.


I think so too.

*Kevin*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090118/72cc84f2/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Jan 19 09:36:28 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:36:28 +1100
Subject: [ExI] FW: how the hell did this happen?
In-Reply-To: <85FB3D1214BD447BB29689C892295540@spike>
References: <7FF509CA567946ED89A764531CCBE973@spike>
	<f21c22e30901170056t58f9b412rbf8487c6676df3b8@mail.gmail.com>
	<2d6187670901170126i75729a1pf955858162e464b2@mail.gmail.com>
	<08E65488B2AD49EF92552DE1CDCA73B3@spike>
	<f21c22e30901171859h2550230av7cabd98af868fc51@mail.gmail.com>
	<EFFC09B940324B21928A299E6B799F0F@spike>
	<f21c22e30901180031q29e24a3ep8b9acfe08f771439@mail.gmail.com>
	<85FB3D1214BD447BB29689C892295540@spike>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30901190136u17e62e34j906344b4d4d098d0@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/19 spike <spike66 at att.net>:

> Ja.  The cops are better trained at what they can do and what they can't do
> than the social workers, or at least they are better at staying within their
> boundaries.  Another possiblility is that they talk to the citizen first, to
> get a feel for how much the citizen knows about their rights.  If they sense
> they know nothing, perhaps the cops misbehave as much as the others, but I
> have never personally witnessed it from that point of view.  All the cops I
> have ever talked to stayed within their legal bounds and behaved in a most
> civil manner.

The police I've worked with have always behaved professionally, but I
can assure you, people are much more inclined to obey them without
being shown a legal order than they are to obey the psychiatric team
with a legal order. I'm talking about totally psychotic people, in
telepathic communication with aliens or God: even they can usually
tell the difference between cops with guns and guys in street clothes
with official-looking paperwork. So it's just as well that the police
are well-behaved, because surely, in the history of the world, police
abusing their power has been a bigger problem than social workers
abusing their power.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From max at maxmore.com  Mon Jan 19 16:57:10 2009
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 10:57:10 -0600
Subject: [ExI] they're everywhere
Message-ID: <200901191724.n0JHO07P018722@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

It's the precautionary principle in action again.

My thoughts (in an earlier version than my book chapter on the topic):

http://www.manyworlds.com/exploreco.aspx?coid=CO4190417435817
Click "View" to see the whole piece.

Max


 >There is a clear disconnect between the sweeping nature of this law,
 >and the narrow range of products that were problematic in 2007.


Max More, Ph.D.
Strategic Philosopher
www.maxmore.com
max at maxmore.com 



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Jan 19 17:41:09 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:41:09 +0100
Subject: [ExI] NKS
Message-ID: <580930c20901190941k7abce509m590b9d1c4d48b2c7@mail.gmail.com>

<<We are still accepting applications for the seventh annual NKS
Summer School. The three-week, tuition-free program--June 22
through July 10 at CNR-Istituto ISTI in Pisa, Italy--is a unique
opportunity to get involved with original research at the
frontiers of science.
http://www.wolframscience.com/summerschool

We are looking for highly motivated individuals who want to
advance their careers in an NKS direction. Our participants come
from many diverse backgrounds, but share a common passion to
discover and explore cutting-edge ideas. In past years, they have
included graduate students, undergraduates, professors, industry
professionals, artists, and even a few exceptional high school
students.

If accepted to the Summer School, you will work directly with
others in the NKS community--including Stephen Wolfram and a
staff of instructors who have made significant contributions to
NKS--on your own original project that could develop into
published papers or the foundations for your thesis.

Take a look at the lecture notes from previous years to get a
sense of what topics will be covered:
http://www.wolframscience.com/summerschool/materials

If you're serious about getting involved with similarly
innovative ideas at the core of NKS, you should consider applying
as soon as possible. Time is running out; acceptance notices will
begin going out during the next few weeks.

Apply online at:
http://www.wolframscience.com/summerschool/application.cgi

Sincerely,


Todd Rowland, PhD
NKS Summer School Academic Director

Catherine Boucher, PhD
NKS Summer School Program Director>>



-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090119/ae43633e/attachment.html>

From benboc at lineone.net  Mon Jan 19 18:41:05 2009
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:41:05 +0000
Subject: [ExI] I'm not sure I understand..please enlighten me.
In-Reply-To: <mailman.72.1232330436.12759.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.72.1232330436.12759.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <4974C941.7080703@lineone.net>

Anne Corwin <sparkle_robot at yahoo.com> flung in our general direction:

> Mike Dougherty wrote:
>>> I am not going to propose another definition for transhumanism, 
>>> since there are already so many.
> 
> I'll propose one, just for fun: transhumanism is a set of loosely 
> interwoven beliefs, predilections, and tendencies that ultimately 
> lead to endless arguments on mailing lists over the definition of
> "transhumanism".
>
> 
> :P
> 
> - Anne



Ah! Thanks, Anne.

Now I finally realise what 'Posthuman' means.

Geddit?

Ben Zaiboc
(A weakly punlike entity)


From benboc at lineone.net  Mon Jan 19 18:41:11 2009
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:41:11 +0000
Subject: [ExI]  drugs again
In-Reply-To: <mailman.72.1232330436.12759.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.72.1232330436.12759.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <4974C947.7080005@lineone.net>

"spike" <spike66 at att.net> mentioned:

 >the topic of drug abuse

Drug abuse?  There's no such thing.  It's a blatant and obnoxious 
'social engineering' term.

People don't abuse drugs.
You /can't/ abuse drugs. It's impossible. They don't have feelings. Can 
you abuse air? Do people talk about 'abusing concrete' Why don't we talk 
about calorie abuse?
Chinese internet users don't abuse political commentary blogs.

OK, I suppose you could abuse drugs in the sense of 'using improperly', 
which would involve, for example, putting LSD in a cigarette, or rubbing 
an e on your arm.  People don't tend to do that.  They usually use the 
drugs properly, as they are meant to be used.  Maybe that will harm them 
(the people), but the abuse is not of the drug.

People use drugs.  In the process, they may well be abusing themselves, 
and they may be doing something that their government or other authority 
doesn't want them to do.  But if you accede to the use of the term 'drug 
abuse' for this, you are letting yourself be brainwashed by people who 
thought it was a good idea to take the term 'user' and make it more 
negative.  It's the NWO again, isn't it.

Ben Zaiboc


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Jan 19 19:06:57 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:06:57 +0100
Subject: [ExI] drugs again
In-Reply-To: <4974C947.7080005@lineone.net>
References: <mailman.72.1232330436.12759.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<4974C947.7080005@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <580930c20901191106j35b91b16i90faf6de774895df@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 7:41 PM, ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:

> You /can't/ abuse drugs. It's impossible. They don't have feelings. Can you
> abuse air? Do people talk about 'abusing concrete' Why don't we talk about
> calorie abuse?


Come on, you would not say that if you had assisted to the pitiful imploring
of a line of cocaine crying and screaming "please do not snort me". But,
well, witnesses to such events may have seen that as a consequence, in more
than one sense, of exactly such an abuse ... :-)

Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090119/9f0a56ff/attachment.html>

From nanogirl at halcyon.com  Mon Jan 19 20:45:52 2009
From: nanogirl at halcyon.com (Gina Miller)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 12:45:52 -0800
Subject: [ExI] drugs again
In-Reply-To: <4974C947.7080005@lineone.net>
References: <mailman.72.1232330436.12759.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<4974C947.7080005@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <9D9DC0B5704449C38555110AE4D4E74C@GinaSony>

It's just a term really but most likely differentiated by people who were prescribed medicine by their doctor and people who used them for non medical effect. I think it is meant to infer abuse of use. From Wiki: 
.'use' refers to the proper place of stimulants in medical practice; 'misuse' applies to the physician's role in initiating a potentially dangerous course of therapy; and 'abuse' refers to self-administration of these drugs without medical supervision and particularly in large doses that may lead to psychological dependency, tolerance and abnormal behavior." The truth is, there is a wide scale on the bar here, drugs can save lives but can also end them and everything in between. If you want to be technical, yes it is people who control the usage, but it does not alleviate the power of the results. 


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: ben 
  To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org 
  Sent: Monday, January 19, 2009 10:41 AM
  Subject: [ExI] drugs again


  "spike" <spike66 at att.net> mentioned:

   >the topic of drug abuse

  Drug abuse?  There's no such thing.  It's a blatant and obnoxious 
  'social engineering' term.

  People don't abuse drugs.
  You /can't/ abuse drugs. It's impossible. They don't have feelings. Can 
  you abuse air? Do people talk about 'abusing concrete' Why don't we talk 
  about calorie abuse?
  Chinese internet users don't abuse political commentary blogs.

  OK, I suppose you could abuse drugs in the sense of 'using improperly', 
  which would involve, for example, putting LSD in a cigarette, or rubbing 
  an e on your arm.  People don't tend to do that.  They usually use the 
  drugs properly, as they are meant to be used.  Maybe that will harm them 
  (the people), but the abuse is not of the drug.

  People use drugs.  In the process, they may well be abusing themselves, 
  and they may be doing something that their government or other authority 
  doesn't want them to do.  But if you accede to the use of the term 'drug 
  abuse' for this, you are letting yourself be brainwashed by people who 
  thought it was a good idea to take the term 'user' and make it more 
  negative.  It's the NWO again, isn't it.

  Ben Zaiboc
  _______________________________________________
  extropy-chat mailing list
  extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090119/caf19e92/attachment.html>

From hkhenson at rogers.com  Mon Jan 19 22:29:51 2009
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 15:29:51 -0700
Subject: [ExI] they're everywhere (thrift shops)
In-Reply-To: <c49b1db60901182215i711c927ap32a854737e7e1a43@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090118015857.0240fb50@satx.rr.com>
	<c49b1db60901181453t6a09829cs87619024be845e42@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090118170855.022e2638@satx.rr.com>
	<c49b1db60901181532w2ec52a3dx5efbd34328065c0b@mail.gmail.com>
	<1232331009_125232@S4.cableone.net>
	<c49b1db60901182215i711c927ap32a854737e7e1a43@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1232404556_129473@s2.cableone.net>

At 11:15 PM 1/18/2009, you wrote:
>On 1/18/09, hkhenson <<mailto:hkhenson at rogers.com>hkhenson at rogers.com> wrote:
>At 04:32 PM 1/18/2009, Kevin wrote:
>
>snip
>
>There's no decision made that doesn't benefit some people while 
>detrimenting others, so it doesn't surprise me in the least that 
>another law is going to harm the interests of many people, the 
>question is what is best for the nation as a whole.
>
>
>This was a poorly thought out law.  It's not a big burden when you 
>test a lot from China for Walmart.  That's what they were thinking about.
>
>
>I think where I'm coming from is either these safety standards are 
>important and need to be followed, or they do not.  I mean, are you 
>proposing that we single out China, or Walmart, or mass production, 
>and allege that products from smaller or native businesses are 
>"safe"?  Is it only certain *kinds* of products?
>
>I don't know a whole lot about the issues involved and, after 
>reading the original post, I'm not much more informed.  These are 
>the kinds of questions I ask myself whenever I hear something like 
>this on some political proposal or another, but usually keep quiet 
>about.  It just surprises me that not everyone thinks this way.
>
>I understand if you guys are saying that the law is overextended to 
>products that we don't have to be concerned about safety.  For 
>instance, do we really have to worry about getting toxins from our 
>clothes?  But, in the cases where we *do* have to be concerned about 
>safety like children's toys, it doesn't make any sense that we'll 
>require safety standards only if it isn't a great burden to the 
>manufacturer.  If we are at all concerned about safety, then we 
>should be concerned whether or not the product comes from a large 
>business or a small business, or from a foreign business or a native business.

Native businesses in the US don't use lead paint.  In fact, I don't 
think it's been possible to buy that kind of pant in the US for a 
number of decades.

>One of the effects of this law is to slam poor people who tend to 
>buy clothes for their kids at thrift shops--Goodwill, Salvation Army 
>and the like.  There is no possible way a thrift shop can test 
>clothing, the cost is hundreds of times the value of the item.
>
>
>I don't have any answers.  How can it be that expensive to test 
>whether or not your products are safe?

I don't think you have the concept "thrift shop" in US terms.  It's a 
charity place that takes donations of all kinds of stuff, but 
particularly clothing and sells the used clothing at a small fraction 
of new cost.  They don't produce clothing so you can't say they have 
products.  And the cost to test a piece of clothing for lead down 
into the parts per million is not low.  It most likely involves the 
total destruction of a sample.

Virtually every item in one of those stores is unique.

Keith

>The potential harm is hard to quantify, but it seems to me to be 
>very small, particularly with clothes.  The cost to the very limited 
>resources of the poor is substantial.
>
>
>I think so too.
>
>Kevin
>
>_______________________________________________
>extropy-chat mailing list
>extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Mon Jan 19 23:00:32 2009
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 16:00:32 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Management
Message-ID: <1232406396_130424@s6.cableone.net>


http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20126901.300-explaining-the-curse-of-work.html?full=true

Interesting article.

It possible it explains how the atomic bomb was built and how solar 
power satellites would have to be if they are to be built at all.

Keith



From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Tue Jan 20 00:15:40 2009
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:15:40 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ExI] they're everywhere (thrift shops)
In-Reply-To: <1232404556_129473@s2.cableone.net>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090118015857.0240fb50@satx.rr.com>
	<c49b1db60901181453t6a09829cs87619024be845e42@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090118170855.022e2638@satx.rr.com>
	<c49b1db60901181532w2ec52a3dx5efbd34328065c0b@mail.gmail.com>
	<1232331009_125232@S4.cableone.net>
	<c49b1db60901182215i711c927ap32a854737e7e1a43@mail.gmail.com>
	<1232404556_129473@s2.cableone.net>
Message-ID: <44833.12.77.168.221.1232410540.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>


Read more about this law here:

http://www.cpsc.gov/cpscpub/prerel/prhtml09/09086.html


IIUC, thrift stores do not have to test (nor have certificates for) the donations
but they do need to be selective about what they sell.

It seems to me the people who will be hurt by this are the cottage industries.

As you say, lead paint is not readily available, lead buttons are not sold in the
sewing shops.  But if, say, Grandma wants to make baby sweaters and sell them in a
specialty shop or craft shop, how would she go about having such things tested? It's
not enough that the materials going into the item are clean: the item as a whole,
the finished product, must be tested. These items are one-of-a-kind. They each must
be tested?  Grandpa likes making wooden puzzles or toy cars to sell in craft shops
or at the church bazzar. They must be tested?

Yup, we gotta stamp out this dangerous behaviour.

Regards,
MB




From msd001 at gmail.com  Tue Jan 20 01:15:26 2009
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 20:15:26 -0500
Subject: [ExI] I'm not sure I understand..please enlighten me.
In-Reply-To: <4974C941.7080703@lineone.net>
References: <mailman.72.1232330436.12759.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<4974C941.7080703@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <62c14240901191715o40219cd9ga0db8cc067f69ec9@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 1:41 PM, ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:
>> I'll propose one, just for fun: transhumanism is a set of loosely
>> interwoven beliefs, predilections, and tendencies that ultimately lead to
>> endless arguments on mailing lists over the definition of
>> "transhumanism".
>
> Ah! Thanks, Anne.
>
> Now I finally realise what 'Posthuman' means.

I'm disappointed you didn't segue to posting your own definition for
'posthuman' since the defintion Anne supplied was for "transhumanism"

> Geddit?
>
> Ben Zaiboc
> (A weakly punlike entity)

I believe your pun frequency is much lower, perhaps only monthly.


From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Tue Jan 20 02:02:01 2009
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 19:02:01 -0700
Subject: [ExI] scary possible future/ordering a pizza in 2010
Message-ID: <2d6187670901191802x6378d41bpee7708dc2a25d1fd@mail.gmail.com>

This is both funny and very unsettling...

*http://aclu.org/pizza/images/screen.swf*

John Grigg  [?]
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090119/dbdad3ae/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 1A5.png
Type: image/png
Size: 668 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090119/dbdad3ae/attachment.png>

From eschatoon at gmail.com  Tue Jan 20 07:17:22 2009
From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 08:17:22 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Teilhard and Transhumanism
Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90901192317j70431624s5ea8fd485082ab04@mail.gmail.com>

Some comments on Teilhard and Transhumanism, inspired by the very
interesting and thoughtful article by Eric Steinhart on Teilhard de
Chardin and Transhumanism, recently appeared on the Journal of
Evolution and Technology.

http://transumanar.com/index.php/site/teilhard_and_transhumanism/

-- 
Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
aka Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco


From iamgoddard at yahoo.com  Tue Jan 20 07:31:59 2009
From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:31:59 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] 'drug abuse'
Message-ID: <372326.34724.qm@web52705.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

ben wrote:

> "spike" <spike66 at att.net> mentioned:
>
> >the topic of drug abuse
>
> Drug abuse?  There's no such thing.  It's a blatant and obnoxious 
> 'social engineering' term.
>
> People don't abuse drugs.
> You /can't/ abuse drugs. It's impossible. They don't have feelings. 
> Can you abuse air? Do people talk about 'abusing concrete' Why don't 
> we talk about calorie abuse?


 The problem with the term 'drug abuse' is not that but how it's used. 'Drug abuse' is prohibitionist-loaded when it refers to any and all illicit-drug use -- if Tom smokes cannabis, that's drug abuse. But in an unloaded context, 'drug abuse' can easily be understood to mean excessive use of drugs, or 'self-abuse by drugs'. So it seems to me that the issue is the *scope* of the term's meaning, not the term per se. ~Ian


http://IanGoddard.com

"It is Art, and Art only, that reveals us to ourselves." - Oscar Wilde

  


      


From iamgoddard at yahoo.com  Tue Jan 20 07:57:03 2009
From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 23:57:03 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
Message-ID: <172968.18542.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Brent Allsop wrote:

> On the idea of consciousness, I'm in these camps:
>
> http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6


 I've also argued the representationalist theory of perception:

http://www.iangoddard.com/paranorm.htm
http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/Departments/StudentJournal/volume2/Ian.pdf

A professor once rebuked that thesis arguing that the world you perceive could not be a mere model in your brain of the world outside your brain because it's too dark to see anything inside your brain. He was serious! Gee, so then I guess dreams must occur outside your brain, since (by his reasoning) it's too dark in your brain to see dreams. ~Ian


http://IanGoddard.com

"It is Art, and Art only, that reveals us to ourselves." - Oscar Wilde


 


      


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jan 20 08:42:28 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 02:42:28 -0600
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <172968.18542.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <172968.18542.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090120023956.024c8d88@satx.rr.com>

At 11:57 PM 1/19/2009 -0800, Ian G. wrote:

>A professor once rebuked that thesis arguing that the world you 
>perceive could not be a mere model in your brain of the world 
>outside your brain because it's too dark to see anything inside your brain.

You could have countered that he obviously wasn't caught up on the 
images of different parts of the scanned brain lighting up when 
various cognitive activities take place. Watch him boggle as he tried 
to make sense of that. :)

Damien Broderick




From kanzure at gmail.com  Tue Jan 20 10:07:22 2009
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 04:07:22 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: DIY DNA: One Father's Attempt to Hack His Daughter's
	Genetic Code
In-Reply-To: <c0a6cb230901200157u5d54fd16tb9d953b1ded3e2fa@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c0a6cb230901200157u5d54fd16tb9d953b1ded3e2fa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55ad6af70901200207t35158e7frb698b76fda778a06@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Jeroen Van Goey <jeroen.vangoey at gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 3:57 AM
Subject: DIY DNA: One Father's Attempt to Hack His Daughter's Genetic Code
To: diybio at googlegroups.com

Hi all,

A nice article in Wired about a father who is combing through his
daugthers DNA to find the cause for her genetic disease.

"""
Families facing this kind of medical uncertainty are often paralyzed
by their distress. But rather than give in to his anguish, Hugh
Rienhoff made an extraordinary decision: He would dig into Beatrice's
genetic code and find the answer himself. A biotechnology consultant
by day, Rienhoff has been an avid student of clinical genetics since
he earned his medical degree nearly 30 years ago. Now he has used this
expertise to transform his Bay Area home into a makeshift genetics
lab. Surrounded by his children's artwork and bookshelves loaded with
his wife's political literature, Rienhoff set about sequencing a
number of Beatrice's genes, preparing samples using secondhand
equipment and turning to public databases to interpret the results. On
the desk in his attic workspace are a pair of white binders stuffed
with charts detailing 20,000 of Beatrice's base pairs; the data for
nearly 1 billion can be accessed from a nearby PC. Whenever he has a
spare moment, Rienhoff sequesters himself in this cluttered, carpeted
room and sifts through his daughter's DNA, one nucleotide at a time.
He is hunting for the single genetic quirk responsible for Beatrice's
woes?an adenine in place of a guanine, perhaps, or an extra cytosine
in a key location. If he can find the culprit, he figures, maybe he
can find a treatment, too.
"""

http://www.wired.com/medtech/genetics/magazine/17-02/ff_diygenetics?currentPage=all

--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "DIYbio" group.
To post to this group, send email to diybio at googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
diybio+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/diybio?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jan 20 21:09:53 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 15:09:53 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Inauguration speech
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090120150657.02288ce0@satx.rr.com>

I was pleased to see that despite the mandatory god genuflecting, 
"unbelievers" got a nod from Obama, being included (at the back of 
the bus) among the citizenry.

Damien Broderick



From sparge at gmail.com  Tue Jan 20 21:31:00 2009
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:31:00 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Inauguration speech
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090120150657.02288ce0@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090120150657.02288ce0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <ffd22f9d0901201331y296a3bbbtf3f9a2432353dcaa@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Jan 20, 2009 at 4:09 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> I was pleased to see that despite the mandatory god genuflecting,
> "unbelievers" got a nod from Obama, being included (at the back of the bus)
> among the citizenry.

Yeah, that was a nice touch. Man, I almost forgot what it was like to
have a president who could form a coherent thought and articulate it.
I may not be an Obama fan boy (yet?), but at least he's not an
embarrassment (yet?).

-Dave


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Tue Jan 20 22:09:58 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 16:09:58 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Inauguration speech
In-Reply-To: <ffd22f9d0901201331y296a3bbbtf3f9a2432353dcaa@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090120150657.02288ce0@satx.rr.com>
	<ffd22f9d0901201331y296a3bbbtf3f9a2432353dcaa@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090120160707.022fd690@satx.rr.com>

I would have preferred him to start his catalogue not with 
"Christians and Muslims," etc, but with the larger logical sets 
"Believers and nonbelievers" or "People of faith and people of 
reason" or "The superstitious and the rational." :)

It's pretty depressing that by implication the "unbelievers" (those 
godless bastards) only get a mention *after* the Scientologists and 
Mormons and Wiccans and Xian "Scientists" and astrologers and Jim 
Jonesians... Still, me and my mates *were* allowed in at the end.

Damien Broderick



From fauxever at sprynet.com  Tue Jan 20 22:52:20 2009
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (fauxever at sprynet.com)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:52:20 -0800 (GMT-08:00)
Subject: [ExI] Inauguration speech
Message-ID: <6508255.1232491940812.JavaMail.root@elwamui-norfolk.atl.sa.earthlink.net>



-----Original Message-----
>From: Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>
>Sent: Jan 20, 2009 2:09 PM
>To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
>Subject: Re: [ExI] Inauguration speech
>
>I would have preferred him to start his catalogue not with 
>"Christians and Muslims," etc, but with the larger logical sets 
>"Believers and nonbelievers" or "People of faith and people of 
>reason" or "The superstitious and the rational." :)

Yeah, would have been nice ...

>It's pretty depressing that by implication the "unbelievers" (those 
>godless bastards) only get a mention *after* the Scientologists and 
>Mormons and Wiccans and Xian "Scientists" and astrologers and Jim 
>Jonesians... Still, me and my mates *were* allowed in at the end.

Obama's biological father was apparently an atheist, and his mother ...:

http://www.americanhumanist.org/press/ObamaAd.php

... it's a start, I suppose.

>_______________________________________________
>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  Tue Jan 20 23:27:46 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:27:46 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Fred Pohl on Sir Arthur
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090120172614.023ff5d0@satx.rr.com>

a rather depressing tale of two old men keeping their heads up as 
best they could:

<http://www.thewaythefutureblogs.com/2009/01/sir-arthur-and-i/#more-28>


..and Fred's still going, happily.



From iamgoddard at yahoo.com  Wed Jan 21 04:23:18 2009
From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (iamgoddard at yahoo.com)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 20:23:18 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
Message-ID: <695098.58437.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

Damien wrote:

> You could have countered that he obviously wasn't caught up on the 
> images of different parts of the scanned brain lighting up when 
> various cognitive activities take place. Watch him boggle as he 
> tried to make sense of that. :)


Right! Yet many people seem to be allergic to the representational model of perception, despite, IMO, the necessary mechanics behind it. As 
Bertrand Russell argued, the end of all the steps of the process of 
perception must be inside the brain, so how then does an end percept 
suddenly jump outside the brain such that the computer I perceive before 
me is the real computer outside my brain? Percepts must be in the brain.

Brent's camp cites Steven Lehar's excellent work on representationalism. 
When Lehar had a paper published in a special issue of 'Behavioral & Brain 
Sciences' devoted to his paper,[*] half the issue was a parade of 
non-stop objections from experts in related fields. When I read it a few
years ago, all the expertise brought to bear against the theory pretty 
much amounted to the argument: "The world I see must be the real world outside my brain because it really really seems to be." LOL!

Yet nobody can explain how neurologically processed percepts jump out of
the brain and occupy the external world. And even that idea leads to an 
illogical loop, for then the projected percept is simply back where the
perceived entity was, 'out there', so how does the brain perceive its 
purportedly projected percept? It's nonsense! Only neurally contained
percepts are logical based on the physics of sensory acquisition. ~Ian

_____________________________________________________________________
[*] http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15067950


http://IanGoddard.com

"It is Art, and Art only, that reveals us to ourselves." - Oscar Wilde




      


From fauxever at sprynet.com  Wed Jan 21 05:02:33 2009
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 21:02:33 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Inauguration from On High
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090120172614.023ff5d0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <77C3EE0776D841C49B43E830D396074D@patrick4ezsk6z>

A most amazing satellite picture - the people look like iron filings around 
magnets:

http://www.popsci.com/content/inauguration-day

Olga 



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Wed Jan 21 05:01:39 2009
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:01:39 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Fred Pohl on Sir Arthur
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090120172614.023ff5d0@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090120172614.023ff5d0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <1232514465_2387@s6.cableone.net>

At 04:27 PM 1/20/2009, you wrote:
>a rather depressing tale of two old men keeping their heads up as 
>best they could:
>
><http://www.thewaythefutureblogs.com/2009/01/sir-arthur-and-i/#more-28>
>
>
>..and Fred's still going, happily.

Many years ago Fred was offered a free freeze.

He turned it down.

Keith 



From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Wed Jan 21 05:09:34 2009
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 22:09:34 -0700
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <172968.18542.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <172968.18542.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <4976AE0E.4010201@comcast.net>


Ian,

I didn't know you were a representationalist.  This is great.  Thanks 
for piping up.

Although I very much object to your usage of the word transparent in the 
section title: 'Transparent Perceptual Process' in your great paper.  
Very misleading terminology.

The story you tell is so typical and proves how stupid the majority of 
even very intelligent people still are on this issue.  Since I've been 
going to conferences on the 'Mind' and recruiting more leading thinkers 
to contribute to this comprehensive survey on the leading theories of 
consciousness, it has completely blown me away how many alleged leading 
thinkers, people that are considered 'peers' for leading journals..., 
that aren't even aware of what a representational view of perception 
is.  At the recent decade of the Mind conference (http://dom-4.org/), so 
many people, even 'superstar' speakers that have made such significant 
contributions to the study of the brain, are so completely clueless, and 
make similarly stupid arguments to the one given by your college professor.

Please join our camp (way more powerful than signing a petition), with 
Steve Lehar (I see you quote him in your paper), John Smythies, Steve 
Harison, and  a growing number of leading thinkers, on this topic here:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6

and help us show that there is a growing and dominant scientific 
consensus on this issue that no other theory will be able to match, so 
we can educate the rest of the clueless world on this issue.  Just 
scroll down a bit on that page and select the 'Join or Directly Support 
this camp' link.  Help us improve it in any way you can.  Then recruit 
as many other enlightened people as you can to help educate the still 
clueless.

Surely, the only reason we haven't discovered what consciousness and 
qualia are yet, is because everyone is simply just looking in the wrong 
place.  We need to make this theory stand out form all the junk theory 
noise that is out there for which there is no consensus whatsoever.  
We're betting that once we can get everyone looking in the right place, 
that THE greatest scientific discovery of all time will finally be made, 
and that will be the discovery of what and how consciousness is.  And 
once we acheive this, the world that will shortly follow will be a very 
different place, philosophically, religiously, and infinitely many other 
ways right?

I'm betting we'll soon be able to congratulate each other as being the 
first members of the camp that represents THE ONE true theory of 
consciousness.

Any other proven leaders out there?  Or are all of you going to join 
some other camp or just wait and join with the rest of the herd when 
they are finally forced to get a clue from the effing scientific proof?

Turring Test, indeed, still?  What clueless idiots (see camp statement 
above).  Can't wait till they see the phenomenal light.

Upward,

Brent Allsop






Ian Goddard wrote:
> Brent Allsop wrote:
>
>   
>> On the idea of consciousness, I'm in these camps:
>>
>> http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6
>>     
>
>
>  I've also argued the representationalist theory of perception:
>
> http://www.iangoddard.com/paranorm.htm
> http://www.montgomerycollege.edu/Departments/StudentJournal/volume2/Ian.pdf
>
> A professor once rebuked that thesis arguing that the world you perceive could not be a mere model in your brain of the world outside your brain because it's too dark to see anything inside your brain. He was serious! Gee, so then I guess dreams must occur outside your brain, since (by his reasoning) it's too dark in your brain to see dreams. ~Ian
>
>
> http://IanGoddard.com
>
> "It is Art, and Art only, that reveals us to ourselves." - Oscar Wilde
>
>
>  
>
>
>       
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>   




From dharris234 at mindspring.com  Wed Jan 21 10:21:21 2009
From: dharris234 at mindspring.com (David C. Harris)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 02:21:21 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: DIY DNA: One Father's Attempt to Hack His Daughter's
 Genetic Code
In-Reply-To: <55ad6af70901200207t35158e7frb698b76fda778a06@mail.gmail.com>
References: <c0a6cb230901200157u5d54fd16tb9d953b1ded3e2fa@mail.gmail.com>
	<55ad6af70901200207t35158e7frb698b76fda778a06@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4976F721.2060803@mindspring.com>

Bryan Bishop wrote:
> A nice article in Wired about a father who is combing through his
> daugthers DNA to find the cause for her genetic disease.
>
>   
Two  thoughts: 

In Lorenzo's Oil, the researcher dad shares his discovery  with the 
other parents at a charity meeting, and   one of the officials 
criticizes the amateur approach.  The dad has a "who the f!ck are you to 
discourage this bit of  hope" reaction quite like the one described 
here.  But  realistically, there is a serious problem even if you find a 
difference in the DNA in an area you believe is important ---- what  
he's trying to find.  You can NOT just stick the  right ATGC letter in 
at the right place in a human and see if the disease is cured.  Mice are 
different:   you can make  a mess of mouse babies by IVF and throw in a 
stretch of DNA with  a marker and the right letter and see if  the 
babies  that incorporate the special DNA are cured.

The  other thought is that his desire to do SOMETHING, just SOMETHING  
that feels like a HUNT for the  wonderful discovery: that may be the 
root of obsessive-compulsive behaviors in human males.  We evolved to be 
happy HUNTING something, like Truth.  It may be part of why hunting 
discoveries  is  such a thrill for scientists.

  - David Harris, Palo Alto




From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Wed Jan 21 18:34:28 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:34:28 -0500
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
References: <172968.18542.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<4976AE0E.4010201@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <0B93D8DFFA5343CD8451B96862D98D2C@MyComputer>

"Brent Allsop" <brent.allsop at comcast.net>

> it has completely blown me away how many alleged leading thinkers, people
> that are considered 'peers' for leading journals..., that aren't even
> aware of what a representational view of perception is.

Did you even consider that there may be a reason for that? Probable the
leading thinkers aren't paying much attention to the "representational view"
is that there is no "is" there, the idea is empty; it can suggest no new
experiments to perform nor can it give theoreticians any help. Nor is there
any way to prove it wrong so it's not science, it's not even philosophy,
it's blather.

I take that back, you did mention one experiment, from a 7 year old issue of
Wired, but I am not impressed and the reason I'm not impressed is that I
feel you need to play fair.

The following noise that I make with my mouth "A medium-size phosphene,
about 5 inches from my face" is NOT a medium-size phosphene, about 5 inches
from my face.

By the way how much progress has the representational view made in the last
7 years? Could that be another reason why the "leading thinkers" aren't very
interested?

You announce with great fanfare that electromagnetic radiation with a
wavelength of 700 nm is not identical to the sensation that we know of as
red. Well duh!

It's obvious to me that red is the way matter reacts when it is organized in
a johnkclarkian way, probably it is also the way matter reacts when it is
organized in a brentallsopian sort of way, but I'll never be certain of that
last point.

But you'll have none of that, you insist that there must be something more
to the sensation of red than what atoms do; and although you don't actually
tell us what that "something" could be there is only one thing it could be,
a soul. I don't find any great mystery in the fact that the "leading
thinkers" are reluctant to go back to the middle ages.

 John K Clark




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Jan 21 19:12:34 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:12:34 -0600
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <0B93D8DFFA5343CD8451B96862D98D2C@MyComputer>
References: <172968.18542.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<4976AE0E.4010201@comcast.net>
	<0B93D8DFFA5343CD8451B96862D98D2C@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090121130801.0255b008@satx.rr.com>

At 01:34 PM 1/21/2009 -0500, a johnkclarkian organization of matter wrote:

>It's obvious to me that red is the way matter reacts when it is organized in
>a johnkclarkian way,

Yes, but that doesn't tell us a whole lot, because green and elephant 
and testy and funny and hungry and in the mood to dash off an email 
are also ways matter reacts when organized in a johnkclarkian way. 
Could you be a bit more precise about this?

Damien Broderick




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Wed Jan 21 19:16:00 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 13:16:00 -0600
Subject: [ExI] carbon nanotube ribbons in meter lengths
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090121131338.02671e78@satx.rr.com>

Brian Wang posts on another list:


The Times UK reported claims that Alan Windle's team at Cambridge
University had created the world's strongest ribbon. I finally tracked
down specifics of this work. From a press release of the 2nd
International Conference on Space Elevator and Carbon Nanotube Tether
Design in Luxembourg on Dec 14, 2008 Cambridge is making 9 Gpa
strength material with a density of one gram per cc [same density as
water] and believe that they can increase the strength to 10 GPa and
make it in meter lengths in time for a space elevator tether
competition in late April, 2009. [Competition tethers must be 2 meters
long and a maximum of 2 grams.] They are also scaling this up to
industrial scale over the next few years. Space elevators are closer
as well as other tether applications like orbital skyhooks. Industrial
scale at 10GPa means lighter, stronger cars, planes, bikes,
spaceships, armor. If they can control the electrical properties then
you can transform the electric grid and wiring. Key parts of the
populist vision of molecular nanotechnology would be happening when
this is scaled to industrial levels.

<http://nextbigfuture.com/2009/01/cambridge-making-carbon-nanotubes.html>



From kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com  Wed Jan 21 23:20:12 2009
From: kevin.l.holmes at gmail.com (Kevin H)
Date: Wed, 21 Jan 2009 16:20:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] carbon nanotube ribbons in meter lengths
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090121131338.02671e78@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090121131338.02671e78@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <c49b1db60901211520o3cde1170ve38fde8ed3a7dd9a@mail.gmail.com>

That's incredible.  Thank you for sharing this with us.

*Kevin*
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090121/7203f432/attachment.html>

From micheals at msu.edu  Mon Jan 19 19:39:02 2009
From: micheals at msu.edu (sam micheal)
Date: Mon, 19 Jan 2009 14:39:02 -0500
Subject: [ExI] possible application areas for the technology
Message-ID: <4974D6D6.5090703@msu.edu>

after discussing the device with family and friends on SARA (amateur 
radio astronomers), i have come up with a tentative list of applications 
for the device:

*NOT* solder (i think the thing will be too rebellious for them anyways)
robot explorer for distant planets including Mars
space-telescopes - control system ('stripped down' version)
babysitter (dangerous but after we do FULL pre-market testing)
companion for the elderly (same as above)
research assistant (my idea - but only if it agrees ;)

of course, the prototype would have to be trained on "what is a 
bathroom" or "how to make lunch" .. but those are engineering concerns 
.. no insight/intuition/inspiration is required for "what is a bathroom" 
or "how to make lunch".

the user would define what kind of lunch they prefer and train the robot 
how to make it.

which brings me to the focus of the real "crux of the matter": robot rights.

we must not only define what we mean by self-awareness, we must define 
consciousness, and most importantly - *the rights associated with those 
definitions*. (what entities deserve rights and what do not.)

i know this as i know myself - it is not a question of *IF* we make 
aware robots, it is a question of *WHEN*. we are on the verge. i can 
sense it. so the real question becomes: will we be prepared legally?

i think it's vitally important (for our civilization) that we decide 
robot rights before they are fully developed. and we can use a fairly 
simple definition of self-awareness: if a robot speaks (or otherwise 
output) in such a way that is *indistinguishable from human*, we must 
assign human rights *regardless if we know or not know* the thing has 
human-like consciousness. if it behaves human, we must treat it as human 
until proven otherwise.

some might question: "what's the point?" (if i design a race of slaves 
then say they must be given freedom.) *it is the responsible thing to 
do.* we cannot say to a child: "play with that nuclear weapon - it is 
only a toy" or "play with your DNA" because that is irresponsible. by 
the same token, we cannot design or make self-aware machines without 
first considering their god-given rights - yes i use the word god. and 
yes i believe they have god-given rights like us. just because they are 
"artificial life" does not make them any less "in god's image". it may 
sound nutty. but profundity typically does.

you can debate the possibility until you are "blue in the face" .. then 
you will read in the headlines: Conscious Machine Developed at 
Company/University X and you will not believe it.. then all the legal 
squabble will happen .. but why? why must we wait until then? *it's 
ridiculous and irresponsible.*

if we don't do it now - i guarantee this thing will "bite us in the 
ass". it is inevitable. establish robot rights now.

sam micheal
ps - i envision a courtroom scenario like this: a robot is on the stand 
- accused of being "just a robot" (with no human rights) .. they debate 
"what is human" .. the robot insists that it be treated as human 
regardless of how it looks different or how its mind is different from a 
human mind. finally, the prosecuting attorney declares "Do you 
understand that if we treat you as human, you must abide by the laws of 
Country X. If you break those laws, you will be punished including 
monetary fines and time in prison. Do you understand our laws, what 
'monetary fine', and 'time in prison' mean? Do you swear by God?" and it 
is up to your imagination - and future history to decide its response.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090119/0fcc7bfe/attachment.html>

From micheals at msu.edu  Tue Jan 20 15:36:03 2009
From: micheals at msu.edu (sam micheal)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 10:36:03 -0500
Subject: [ExI] very rough model of simulator and one version of consciousness
Message-ID: <4975EF63.2080505@msu.edu>

now, with the model below - i have to make a couple statements: it is 
Extremely rough - no assumption is made about correctness nor 
completeness. so i would prefer readers send suggestions about component 
corrections or extensions - not simply dismissal like regan seems to 
prefer. regan would seem to prefer to reject point by point - just to 
dismiss my ideas - without reading or understanding. perhaps it is their 
job to confuse and obfuscate - so i would take any of their statements 
with a large "grain" of salt; don't just take regan's word for it - 
*read for yourself and decide for yourself*. the other point about the 
model is that there is no assumption made that it is anything similar to 
human consciousness - i am NOT saying this is how we think or are aware. 
it is only a guess. it is only a model of the guess. so plz don't assume 
i am saying "this is a complete and accurate model of human 
consciousness" - it is NOT.



A COnscious MAchine Simulator -- ACOMAS

Salvatore Gerard Micheal, *modified* 15/JAN/09

 

Objects

   2 cross verifying senses (simulated)

      hearing (stereo)

      seeing (stereo)

   *motivation subsystem (specs to be determined)*

*   information filters (4 controlled hierarchically)*

   *supervisory symbol register (same as below)*

   short-term*/primary* symbol register (8^3 symbols arranged in 8x8x8 
array)

   rule-base (self verifying and extending)

   *rule-base symbol register (same as above)*

   3D visualization register *(10^12 bits arranged in 10000x10000x10000 
array)*

   models of reality (at least 2)

   morality (unmodifiable and uncircumventable)

      don't steal, kill, lie, or harm

   goal list (modifiable, prioritized)

   output devices

      robotic arms (simulated -- 2)

      voice-synthesizer and speaker

      video display unit

   local environment (simulated)

   operator (simulated, controlled by operator)

 

Purpose

 test feasibility of construct for an actual conscious machine

 discover timing requirements for working prototype

 discover specifications of objects

 discover implications/consequences of enhanced intelligence

  (humans have 7 short-term symbol registers)

 discover implications/consequences of emotionless consciousness

 

Specifications -- The registers are the core of the device -- the 
(qualified) 'controllers' of the system (acting on goal list), the 
reasoners of the system (identifying rules), but all constrained by 
morality. The goal list should be instantaneously modifiable. For 
instance, an operator can request "show me your goal list" .. "delete 
that item" or "move that item to the top" .. "learn the rules of chess" 
and the device should comply immediately. Otherwise, the device plays 
with its environment -- learning new rules and proposing new experiments.

 

The purpose of the cross verifying senses is to reinforce the 'sense of 
identity' established by these, registers, and model of reality. The 
reason for 'at least 2' models is to provide a 'means-ends' basis for 
problem solving -- one model to represent local environment 'as is' and 
another for the desired outcome of the top goal. The purpose for 
arranging the short-term register in a 3D array is to give the capacity 
for 'novel thought' processes (humans have a tendency to think in linear 
sequential terms). The reason for designing a self verifying and 
extending rule-base is because that has a tendency to be a data and 
processing intensive activity -- if we designed the primary task of the 
device to be a 'rule-base analyzer', undoubtedly the device would spend 
the bulk of its time on related tasks (thereby creating a rule-base 
analyzer device and not a conscious machine). The 'models of reality' 
could be as simple as a list of objects and locations. Or, they could be 
a virtual reality implemented on a dedicated machine. This applies to 
the 'local environment' as well. For operator convenience, the simulated 
local environment should be in the form of a virtual reality. So the 
operator would interact with the device in a virtual world (in the 
simulated version). In this version, the senses, robot arms, and 
operator presence -- would all be virtual. This should be clarified to 
the device so that any transition to 'real reality' would not have 
destructive consequences.

 

*Modifications: the specs for the visualization register at this time 
were "either or" -- either a restricted VR (as described in the specs-01 
document) or a bit-array. Since I'm not a VR programmer, it was simpler 
for me to specify my "best guess" at the requirements for a bit-array. A 
dedicated rule-base symbol register was added because that subsystem 
will likely be "register hogging" and won't allow the device to freely 
"pay attention" to anything else but rule-base development. The 
supervisory symbol register was added also to "free up" the primary 
symbol register for "attentive tasks". The purpose of that is exactly 
what it says: to take directives directly from the motivation subsystem 
and "tell" the rest of the system what to do. For instance, the 
rule-base register may be currently scanning the rule-base for 
consistency (since there were no immediate tasks assigned). The primary 
symbol register is telling the robotic arms to push a set of toy blocks 
over (since it is in play/experiment mode -- to see what happens). The 
supervisory symbol register just received a directive from motivation: 
try to make Sam laugh with a joke. A possible scenario is described in 
specs-01. (The directive would have to entail "researching" what a joke 
is -- in the rule-base, what qualifies as "laughing", and any other 
definitions required to satisfy the directive. If those researches were 
not satisfied, the directive would have to be discarded or questions 
asked of the operator: "Sam, what's a joke?") ..After outlining the 
'conscious part' in a schematic 'block diagram', I realized information 
filters would be required implemented in a hierarchical fashion (this 
basic design was approached in '95). Senses feed: motivation, 
supervisor, primary register, and visualization register. But through 
filters: motivation controls its own and the supervisor filter; 
supervisor controls the filters feeding the registers. Directives/info 
flows directly from: motivation to supervisor and supervisor to 
registers. Signals before and after filters would be analogous to 
sensations and perceptions: the hierarchical 'filter control structure' 
decides what sensations are perceived by lower registers -- thereby 
controlling sensation impact and actual register content. Whether or not 
humans actually think like this, I believe the structure is rich enough 
to at least mimic human consciousness. The crux, 'the Achilles Heel', 
becomes motivation. The motivation subsystem must be flexible and 
focusable. It cannot be overly flexible (completely random) or overly 
rigid (focusing only on the goal list). Its control of the filters 
(including its own) must be adaptable and expedient. Its purpose is to 
guide the system away from inane repetition, 'blind alleys' (unnavigable 
logical sequences and unprovable physics), and catastrophic failure; 
simultaneously, guide the system toward robust and reliable solutions to 
problems, expedient play/experimentation, and engaging conversation with 
the operator. If this sounds impossible, try to raise a baby without any 
experience! You learn fast! ;)*

 

My ultimate purpose of creating a conscious machine is not out of ego or 
self aggrandizement. I simply want to see if it can be done. If it can 
be done, then create something creative with potential. My mother argues 
a robot can never 'procreate' because they are not 'flesh and blood'. It 
can never have insight or other elusive human qualities. I argue that 
they can 'procreate' in their own way and are only limited by their 
creators. If we can 'distill' the essence of consciousness in a 
construct (like above), if we can implement it on a set of computer 
hardware and software, if we give that construct the capacity for 
growth, if that construct has even a minimal creative ability (such as 
with GA/GP), and critically limit its behavior by morality (such as 
above), we have created a sentient being (not just an 
artificial/synthetic consciousness). I focus on morality because if such 
a device became widespread, undoubtedly they would be abused to perform 
'unsavory' tasks which would have fatal legal consequences for inventor 
and producer alike.

 

In this context, I propose we establish 'robot rights' before they are 
developed in order to provide a framework for dealing with abuses and 
'violations of law'. Now, all this may seem like science fiction to 
most. But I contend we have focused far too long on what we call 'AI' 
and expert systems. For too long we have blocked real progress in 
machine intelligence by one of two things: mystifying 'the human animal' 
(by basically saying it can't be done) -- or -- staring at an 
inappropriate paradigm. It's good to understand linguistics and vision 
-- without that understanding, perhaps we could not implement certain 
portions of the construct above. But unless we focus on the mechanisms 
of consciousness, we will never model it, simulate it, or create it 
artificially.

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090120/8c9fa734/attachment.html>

From micheals at msu.edu  Tue Jan 20 19:55:52 2009
From: micheals at msu.edu (sam micheal)
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 14:55:52 -0500
Subject: [ExI] please write your elected officials about my problem
Message-ID: <49762C48.6050503@msu.edu>

http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml

Dear President Obama,

My wife is HIV+. She's a Thai citizen. Our son is a US citizen. I am a 
US citizen by birth and by living here most of my life. None of us have 
any criminal history (documented for my wife and I). So, the only reason 
Bangkok Immigration could reject her visa application is based on the 
HIV thing. (Since I am unemployed, my parents have had to certify 
sponsorship for my wife. They also have signed an "HIV Waiver" document 
I prepared.) The HIV Waiver, people say, is required for people like my 
wife.

Now, the hospital doing testing for her has been hesitant to complete 
the paperwork they are required to complete for her visa application. 
They also suggest she may not be able to come here. I suspect Bangkok 
Immigration may be enforcing a policy no longer applicable under your 
administration. The Bangkok Embassy is the actual office responsible for 
visa interviews. Can you please make sure your policy, which I'm sure 
does not reject HIV+ people like my wife, is enforced?

Note that my son, a US citizen, will not be coming to the United States 
unless his mother gets a visa to come here.

Sam Micheal
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
dear reader,

i could not send the whole letter because they limit the number of 
characters to 500 per message. so i had to send it in parts. i did not 
include salutation or signature because that is specified in other 
fields on the form. i also did not include the last line which starts 
"Note.." for expediency sake. but it is perhaps the most important 
sentence above. my son will not be coming here unless my wife gets a 
visa. why? i cannot ask them to separate. it's wrong. so .. if you have 
a heart. if you believe in my cause. if you can type english. if you are 
a resident or citizen of the united states, please help.

sam

ps - SARA guys - plz forgive this letter; but as u can c, i'm "at the 
end of my rope" (or any other colorful metaphor u choose to employ). 
that apology also is intended to the individuals and other lists on this 
letter. please forgive this letter. it's not a form/spam letter (as u 
can c). this is from my heart. if you choose to rewrite portions or all 
of the above letter, plz do so from your perspective. that's totally up 
to you. who you write to is also up to you. i chose the president 
because we have such high hopes associated with him. if you're "only" a 
resident and think your voice does not matter, plz reconsider. they care 
as much about your good ideas - as much as "the next guy". we just 
watched the new president get inaugurated. we listened to his speech. i 
pray he can implement positive lasting change. and i think .. he cannot 
possibly condone rejecting HIV+ ppl from coming to the united states. 
this is a real issue. please do not dismiss it.



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Thu Jan 22 15:48:37 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:48:37 -0500
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
References: <172968.18542.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com><4976AE0E.4010201@comcast.net><0B93D8DFFA5343CD8451B96862D98D2C@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090121130801.0255b008@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <EA6E7EE8E1734A24A211CF075630006E@MyComputer>

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

> Yes, but that doesn't tell us a whole lot, because green and
> elephant and testy and funny and hungry and in the mood to
> dash off an email are also ways matter reacts when organized
> in a johnkclarkian way.
> Could you be a bit more precise about this?

No Damien, unfortunately I can't be more precise about this. If I could be
more specific I'd know how to build a conscious AI, and right now instead of
writing this two bit Email I'd be writing my Nobel Prize acceptance speech.
I freely admit that my words were so general that it was a little like
explaining physics by saying "stuff happens"; but even that remark would
have value to somebody who believed that stuff didn't happen.

In the field of cognition it's astounding that well educated and otherwise
intelligent people believe in the equivalent of stuff doesn't happen; that
subjective experience is not a function of the way atoms are organized.
They even like to talk about "free will" and say that we don't do things
because of cause and effect AND we don't do then at random either;
that is to say, stuff that is NOT created by cause and effect is NOT the
reason we do things either. So X is not true and (not X) is untrue also,
even when X is as clearly defined as anything in human experience.
To such a person the information "stuff happens" is profound and useful.

  John K Clark







From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jan 22 17:45:50 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 11:45:50 -0600
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <EA6E7EE8E1734A24A211CF075630006E@MyComputer>
References: <172968.18542.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<4976AE0E.4010201@comcast.net>
	<0B93D8DFFA5343CD8451B96862D98D2C@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090121130801.0255b008@satx.rr.com>
	<EA6E7EE8E1734A24A211CF075630006E@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090122114032.02711820@satx.rr.com>

At 10:48 AM 1/22/2009 -0500, John K Clark wrote:

>I freely admit that my words were so general that it was a little like
>explaining physics by saying "stuff happens"; but even that remark would
>have value to somebody who believed that stuff didn't happen.

This is a doctrine that accords well with my two major theories.

I. The Special Theory of Reality:

Some shit happens.

(This is sometimes expressed in limiting terms as "Shit happens at 
the speed of light.")

II. The General Theory of Reality:

Shit happens all over.

Damien Broderick 



From iamgoddard at yahoo.com  Thu Jan 22 17:49:53 2009
From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:49:53 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
Message-ID: <287763.66400.qm@web52705.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

John K Clark wrote:

> Probable the leading thinkers aren't paying much attention to the
> "representational view" is that there is no "is" there, the idea is 
> empty; it can suggest no new experiments to perform nor can it give 
> theoreticians any help. Nor is there any way to prove it wrong so 
> it's not science, it's not even philosophy, it's blather.


 Asking where neurally processed sensory phenomena, or percepta, are 
(in or outside the brain) is of course fundamental to understanding 
perception. If we want to create synthetic brains with perceptual 
abilities like our own, surely we need to figure that out. There's 
nothing supernatural or pseudo-scientific about such a line of inquiry. 

 However, the idea that a brain's percepta exist outside it rests on 
supernatural, or as yet undiscovered, 'projecting' abilities of the brain.
So it seems that the representational model is the inherent default model 
until and unless someone can show that the brain can project outside of 
itself the percepts it's processed. In short, the representational model 
is the simplest model (invoking Occam's razor) because it posits no 
supernatural, or undiscovered physical, processes. ~Ian


http://IanGoddard.com

"It is Art, and Art only, that reveals us to ourselves." - Oscar Wilde

 


      


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Thu Jan 22 18:19:38 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:19:38 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Grammar Gestapos
References: <172968.18542.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com><4976AE0E.4010201@comcast.net>
	<0B93D8DFFA5343CD8451B96862D98D2C@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <0BE8531AE203424898802F1599B82F00@MyComputer>

January 22, 2009
Op-Ed Contributor New York Times

Oaf of Office

By STEVEN PINKER

IN 1969, Neil Armstrong appeared to have omitted an indefinite article as he 
stepped onto the moon and left earthlings puzzled over the difference 
between "man" and "mankind." In 1980, Jimmy Carter, accepting his party's 
nomination, paid homage to a former vice president he called Hubert Horatio 
Hornblower. A year later, Diana Spencer reversed the first two names of her 
betrothed in her wedding vows, and thus, as Prince Charles Philip supposedly 
later joked, actually married his father.

On Tuesday, Chief Justice John Roberts joined the Flubber Hall of Fame when 
he administered the presidential oath of office apparently without notes. 
Instead of having Barack Obama "solemnly swear that I will faithfully 
execute the office of president of the United States," Chief Justice Roberts 
had him "solemnly swear that I will execute the office of president to the 
United States faithfully." When Mr. Obama paused after "execute," the chief 
justice prompted him to continue with "faithfully the office of president of 
the United States." (To ensure that the president was properly sworn in, the 
chief justice re-administered the oath Wednesday evening.)

How could a famous stickler for grammar have bungled that 35-word passage, 
among the best-known words in the Constitution? Conspiracy theorists and 
connoisseurs of Freudian slips have surmised that it was unconscious 
retaliation for Senator Obama's vote against the chief justice's 
confirmation in 2005. But a simpler explanation is that the wayward adverb 
in the passage is blowback from Chief Justice Roberts's habit of grammatical 
niggling.

Language pedants hew to an oral tradition of shibboleths that have no basis 
in logic or style, that have been defied by great writers for centuries, and 
that have been disavowed by every thoughtful usage manual. Nonetheless, they 
refuse to go away, perpetuated by the Gotcha! Gang and meekly obeyed by 
insecure writers.

Among these fetishes is the prohibition against "split verbs," in which an 
adverb comes between an infinitive marker like "to," or an auxiliary like 
"will," and the main verb of the sentence. According to this superstition, 
Captain Kirk made a grammatical error when he declared that the five-year 
mission of the starship Enterprise was "to boldly go where no man has gone 
before"; it should have been "to go boldly." Likewise, Dolly Parton should 
not have declared that "I will always love you" but "I always will love you" 
or "I will love you always."

Any speaker who has not been brainwashed by the split-verb myth can sense 
that these corrections go against the rhythm and logic of English phrasing. 
The myth originated centuries ago in a thick-witted analogy to Latin, in 
which it is impossible to split an infinitive because it consists of a 
single word, like dicere, "to say." But in English, infinitives like "to go" 
and future-tense forms like "will go" are two words, not one, and there is 
not the slightest reason to interdict adverbs from the position between 
them.

Though the ungrammaticality of split verbs is an urban legend, it found its 
way into The Texas Law Review Manual on Style, which is the arbiter of usage 
for many law review journals. James Lindgren, a critic of the manual, has 
found that many lawyers have "internalized the bogus rule so that they 
actually believe that a split verb should be avoided," adding, "The Invasion 
of the Body Snatchers has succeeded so well that many can no longer 
distinguish alien speech from native speech."

In his legal opinions, Chief Justice Roberts has altered quotations to 
conform to his notions of grammaticality, as when he excised the "ain't" 
from Bob Dylan's line "When you ain't got nothing, you got nothing to lose." 
On Tuesday his inner copy editor overrode any instincts toward strict 
constructionism and unilaterally amended the Constitution by moving the 
adverb "faithfully" away from the verb.

President Obama, whose attention to language is obvious in his speeches and 
writings, smiled at the chief justice's hypercorrection, then gamely 
repeated it. Let's hope that during the next four years he will always 
challenge dogma and boldly lead the nation in new directions.

Steven Pinker is a psychology professor at Harvard and the chairman of the 
usage panel of The American Heritage Dictionary.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090122/de3c5bdf/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Thu Jan 22 18:38:29 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 13:38:29 -0500
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
References: <287763.66400.qm@web52705.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <F8AB07B279DA4BBABE393AB72E93A8B7@MyComputer>

"Ian Goddard" <iamgoddard at yahoo.com>

> Asking where neurally processed sensory phenomena,
> or percepta, are (in or outside the brain) is of course
> fundamental to understanding perception.

Asking what part of the brain produce feelings of perception is not the same
as saying that is where those perceptions are located, in fact asking where
thoughts are located is pretty meaningless. Thoughts and feelings sure don't
seem to be coming from a box made of bone that sits on my shoulders, and
what things seem to be is all that's important. And I strongly suspect most
on this list aren't really very interested in the brain, I'm not. I'm
interested in the mind, I'm interested in what the brain does and less
interested in what it is.

  John K Clark




From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Thu Jan 22 20:03:48 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 21:03:48 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Grammar Gestapos
In-Reply-To: <0BE8531AE203424898802F1599B82F00@MyComputer>
References: <172968.18542.qm@web52712.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<4976AE0E.4010201@comcast.net>
	<0B93D8DFFA5343CD8451B96862D98D2C@MyComputer>
	<0BE8531AE203424898802F1599B82F00@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <580930c20901221203y5c8bcf81uec1b04b050c65dbc@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 22, 2009 at 7:19 PM, John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> January 22, 2009
> Op-Ed Contributor New York Times
> Oaf of Office
> By STEVEN PINKER
>But a simpler explanation is that the wayward adverb
> in the passage is blowback from Chief Justice Roberts's habit of grammatical
> niggling.

Since when has English a grammar? :-)

--
Stefano Vaj


From iamgoddard at yahoo.com  Thu Jan 22 20:42:51 2009
From: iamgoddard at yahoo.com (Ian Goddard)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:42:51 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
Message-ID: <418994.14972.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com>

> I didn't know you were a representationalist.  

 Thanks for the good words and invite! When I wrote [*] for ought I knew 
it was a new idea. I was pondering the question, since my percept of a 
star in the heavens is actually just photos from a star that have struck 
my optic nerve and been processed in my brain, how is it that the percept 
appears 'out there'. Suddenly I concluded that what I see as being 'out 
there' must be a model in my brain built up from sensory data emanating 
from a real 'out there' that I can't see directly except by way of neural 
acquisition and representation.

 Then, while doing research for my longer paper in the student journal I ran into Lehar's extensive work and found that the idea goes way back.


> I'm betting we'll soon be able to congratulate each other as being the 
> first members of the camp that represents THE ONE true theory of 
> consciousness.

 I don't know what representationalism tells use about consciousness. I 
see it as a mechanical way of assembling percepts for an 'observer', ie, 
a conscious self. But this process does not necessarily entail an 
observer. Take for example 'absence epilepsy' during which an epileptic 
can interact with the world, but only in a mechanical lifeless way. By all 
appearances, both from other observers and the epileptic afterward, there 
was no conscious self there during the seizure. And yet it seems clear 
that the brain was assembling a model of the world all the while.

 Also, there can be things in our field of vision that we fail to notice, 
even though the brain assembled a representation of them. So it seems like 
the conscious self is something still higher. I suspect we agree about 
that. Obviously consciousness is an exceedingly complex and mysterious 
issue. But I'd be interested to know how you see representationalism as 
an inherent feature of the right theory of consciousness. Though I 
suspect you can't have a conscious being interacting with the world in 
complex ways without that being having assembled a world model. ~Ian

_______________________________________________________________________
[*] http://www.iangoddard.com/paranorm.htm


http://IanGoddard.com

"It is Art, and Art only, that reveals us to ourselves." - Oscar Wilde

 


      


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jan 22 21:40:24 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 15:40:24 -0600
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <418994.14972.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <418994.14972.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090122153141.02712f20@satx.rr.com>

At 12:42 PM 1/22/2009 -0800, Ian G. wrote:

>When I wrote [*] for aught I knew
>it was a new idea. I was pondering the question, since my percept of a
>star in the heavens is actually just photos from a star that have struck
>my optic nerve and been processed in my brain, how is it that the percept
>appears 'out there'. Suddenly I concluded that what I see as being 'out
>there' must be a model in my brain
>[*] http://www.iangoddard.com/paranorm.htm

Mental modeling has been investigated for decades, of course (and 
seems to me self-evident); see, e.g. Philip Johnson-Laird's, um, 
MENTAL MODELS (1983) and lots of work by Stephen Kosslyn and his 
associates; from Wiki on Kosslyn: "Image and Mind (1980), Ghosts in 
the Mind's Machine (1983), Wet Mind (1992, with Olivier Koenig), 
...Image and Brain (1994), The Case for Mental Imagery (2006, with 
Thompson and Ganis)" etc.

Your 1999 explanation for out of body experiences is pretty much the 
same reached by psychologist/memeticist Susan Blackmore's (summarized 
in Beyond the Body: An Investigation of Out-Of-The-Body Experiences, 
Academy Chicago Publishers, 1983).

Damien Broderick




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Jan 23 05:22:25 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 23:22:25 -0600
Subject: [ExI] pop quantum news
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090122232208.02565350@satx.rr.com>

Friday, 23 January 2009

<http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/2491/full>

by Jacqui Hayes
Cosmos Online


SYDNEY: Quantum information has been successfully 
teleported between two single atoms a metre apart 
? a significant step towards long distance 
quantum communication and quantum computing, researchers say.

Quantum information is information about the 
physical state of a particle: its energy or spin, 
for example. Physicists in the U.S. have now 
managed to faithfully transfer this information 
between two atoms separated by a short distance, 
according to their study published today in the journal Science.

"The teleportation of quantum information in this 
way could form the basis of a new type of quantum 
internet that could outperform any conventional 
type of classical network for certain tasks," 
said Christopher Monroe, study author with the 
Joint Quantum Institute at the University of Maryland in College Park.

Before now, quantum teleportation had been 
achieved over very long distances with groups of 
atoms or with photons (see, 
<http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/news/1361/quantum-communication-breaks-distance-record>Quantum 
communication breaks distance record), but this 
is the first time it has demonstrated with single atoms.

Only quantum teleportation between single atoms 
is a feasible way to hold and manage quantum 
information over long distances. "Photons are 
ideal for transferring information fast over long 
distances, whereas atoms offer a valuable medium 
for long-lived quantum memory," said Monroe.

In the study, the researchers put two ytterbium 
ions (A and B) in separate vacuum traps separated 
by one metre. Ion A was irradiated by microwaves, 
putting it into an unknown quantum state ? this 
state was the information to be transported.

The ions were excited by a laser pulse, which 
caused them to emit a single photon and returned 
to their initial state. The photons were measured 
in such a way that it was impossible to tell 
which ion emitted which photon. In the curious 
world of quantum mechanics, this projects an 
'entangled' state onto the ions....

Once the two ions were entangled, the researchers 
took a measurement of ion A. Because ion A and 
ion B were entangled, this forced ion B to embody 
the initial unknown quantum state of ion A. The 
team then applied a microwave pulse to ion B to 
recover the original state of ion A.

The researchers report that atom-to-atom 
teleported information can be recovered 
accurately 90 per cent of the time ? a figure they hope to improve.

Monroe said that their set-up could one day have 
a use as a 'quantum repeater' ? these tackle the 
problem of generating a signal by temporarily 
storing the state of a photon. New photons with 
the same state are generated at each repeater propagating the signal.

"Our system has the potential to form the basis 
for a lage-scale 'quantum repeater' that can 
network quantum memories over vast distances," 
added Monroe. Without quantum repeaters, 
long-distance quantum communication would not be possible.

"This experiment is an important step toward the 
realisation of quantum repeaters," wrote 
physicists M. S. Kim and Jaeyoon Cho of Queen's 
University in Belfast in an accompanying 
commentary in the same issue of Science. "With 
the recent experimental advances, the 
theoretically presumed quantum paradoxes are 
slowly revolutionising information technology."



From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Jan 23 20:44:27 2009
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 12:44:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
Message-ID: <853373.63137.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- On Wed, 1/21/09, John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> "Brent Allsop" <brent.allsop at comcast.net>
> 
> > it has completely blown me away how many alleged
> leading thinkers, people
> > that are considered 'peers' for leading
> journals..., that aren't even
> > aware of what a representational view of perception
> is.
> 
> Did you even consider that there may be a reason for that?
> Probable the
> leading thinkers aren't paying much attention to the
> "representational view"
> is that there is no "is" there, the idea is
> empty; it can suggest no new
> experiments to perform nor can it give theoreticians any
> help. Nor is there
> any way to prove it wrong so it's not science, it's
> not even philosophy,
> it's blather.

I don't quite get what you mean, John. Do you think that you directly perceive fundamental reality at full resolution? There have been many experiments that demonstrate that this is not the case.

For example take the following test:

http://hvattum.net/2006/06/10/can-you-trust-your-mind/

As you can see this is an example of how incomplete our mental representations of reality really are. Under the right set of conditions one can fail to notice the blatantly obvious. This effect called inattentional blindness can have deadly consequences as when people talking on cell phones crash their cars or life guards fail to notice drowning victims lying still on the bottom of transparent swimming pools:

http://www.aquaticsintl.com/2004/nov/0411_rm.html

Conversely under a different set of conditions one can perceive differences, dimensionalities, colors, and motions that do not in reality exist in an image. That is the basis of these optical illusions:

http://www.grand-illusions.com/opticalillusions/

Phantom limbs would also fall under this category.

> I take that back, you did mention one experiment, from a 7
> year old issue of
> Wired, but I am not impressed and the reason I'm not
> impressed is that I
> feel you need to play fair.

Could you summarize the experiment in Wired? While it is true that one can be manipulated into these false or incomplete perceptions, one commonly encounters them naturally in ones environment all the time. In a way, the Ptolemic astronomical system, with the sun and the moon revolving around the earth is just such an illusion. So is the old flat earth model. The ancients were not entrely *stupid* in these matters. They simply trusted their perceptions and their perceptions were mistaken. "I don't have to shorten the table legs on one side therefore the world must be flat."
 
> The following noise that I make with my mouth "A
> medium-size phosphene,
> about 5 inches from my face" is NOT a medium-size
> phosphene, about 5 inches
> from my face.

The sounds coming from your mouth are not so much perceptual representations as abstract sound symbols. The abstraction removes them even further from the underlying reality than the faulty perceptual representation in ones mind. Yet these sound symbols can also convey information that ones senses are blind to like the mass or chemical composition. 

To read about the moon is even further removed from the actual moon than simply seeing the moon. Yet even seeing the moon is still not the moon. You think you see the moon but the actual moon cannot fit in your head. How is that possible unless what you perceive is a representation of the moon that is at much lower resolution, computational complexity, and size than the actual moon? And if you attest that you truly see the actual moon, than how many total flags are on it? 

If you truly perceive your real body, then how many wrinkles do you have? Your perceived ego self is but a distorted low resolution map of a body self that doesn't fit in your head. And your body resonates with the energies of the universe. The only reason you can even see a star is because that star's energies are causing chemical reactions in your retina. It is only your ego self that prevents you from realizing that you and star are part of the same network of light.   

> By the way how much progress has the representational view
> made in the last
> 7 years? Could that be another reason why the "leading
> thinkers" aren't very
> interested?

Perhaps because they are heavily invested in their own delusions.

> You announce with great fanfare that electromagnetic
> radiation with a
> wavelength of 700 nm is not identical to the sensation that
> we know of as
> red. Well duh!

That's a categorical quibble. Red is a generalization of an infinity of wavelengths tucked away between 650 and 750. Is John Clark identical to a human being?
 
> It's obvious to me that red is the way matter reacts
> when it is organized in
> a johnkclarkian way, probably it is also the way matter
> reacts when it is
> organized in a brentallsopian sort of way, but I'll
> never be certain of that
> last point.

The number of people stopped at a metropolitan red-light is pretty convincing empirically. It doesn't matter how your brain parses red so long as it is consistent and accurate to within a few tens of nanometers.
 
> But you'll have none of that, you insist that there
> must be something more
> to the sensation of red than what atoms do; and although
> you don't actually
> tell us what that "something" could be there is
> only one thing it could be,
> a soul. I don't find any great mystery in the fact that
> the "leading
> thinkers" are reluctant to go back to the middle ages.

There is but one soul and you are an instantiation of it. The parameters that have been passed to you by the subroutine call however have been unique.


Stuart LaForge

"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo







      


From benboc at lineone.net  Fri Jan 23 21:29:05 2009
From: benboc at lineone.net (ben)
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 21:29:05 +0000
Subject: [ExI] I'm not sure I understand..please enlighten me.
In-Reply-To: <mailman.95.1232514474.12759.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.95.1232514474.12759.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <497A36A1.9010600@lineone.net>

Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> riposted:

> On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 1:41 PM, ben <benboc at lineone.net> wrote:
>> 
>> Ah! Thanks, Anne.
>> 
>> Now I finally realise what 'Posthuman' means.

> I'm disappointed you didn't segue to posting your own definition for
>  'posthuman' since the defintion Anne supplied was for
> "transhumanism"
> 


My Posthuman only visits once a day now, and there's only one collection
a day, too.  This is the Intarwebs fault.

(This sentence probably only works in the UK. 'Mailhuman' doesn't result
in any kind of pun at all)

>> Geddit?
>> 
>> Ben Zaiboc (A weakly punlike entity)

> I believe your pun frequency is much lower, perhaps only monthly.



Thanks for providing my belly-laugh for this week!

Ben Zaiboc


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Fri Jan 23 22:23:03 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 16:23:03 -0600
Subject: [ExI] I'm not sure I understand..please enlighten me.
In-Reply-To: <497A36A1.9010600@lineone.net>
References: <mailman.95.1232514474.12759.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<497A36A1.9010600@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090123161714.024a2820@satx.rr.com>

At 09:29 PM 1/23/2009 +0000, Ben Z. wrote:

>>>Geddit?
>>>Ben Zaiboc (A weakly punlike entity)
>
>>I believe your pun frequency is much lower, perhaps only monthly.
>
>Thanks for providing my belly-laugh for this week!

Hmm. It might've been slightly funnier in a belly cramping way (for 
those who do not deplore sexist jokes) had he written, say:

>I believe your pun period is perhaps only monthly.





From spike66 at att.net  Fri Jan 23 22:33:55 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 2009 14:33:55 -0800
Subject: [ExI] I'm not sure I understand..please enlighten me.
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090123161714.024a2820@satx.rr.com>
References: <mailman.95.1232514474.12759.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org><497A36A1.9010600@lineone.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090123161714.024a2820@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <43D2FCB444E64C4096B8D20ADF9C959B@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick
>...
> 
> Hmm. It might've been slightly funnier in a belly cramping 
> way (for those who do not deplore sexist jokes) had he written, say:
> 
> >I believe your pun period is perhaps only monthly.


Damien it is indeed an honor to be on the same email group with you.  I
nominate you as the wittiest professional writer of all history.

If a dentist is one who does dental work for a living and an artist creates
art professionally, then how do we define a sexist?

spike






From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Sat Jan 24 17:33:26 2009
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 10:33:26 -0700
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <418994.14972.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
References: <418994.14972.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <497B50E6.8080602@comcast.net>


Ian,

Yes, all higher 'cognitive' abilities including emotions, love, 
intuition, free will..., and all of consciousness itself are much more 
complex squishy and difficult to comprehend than simple red vs green 
phenomenal properties and a unified 3D visual field made of these 
phenomenal properties.

The theory goes that there is a 'hard problem' of consciousness.  And 
this 'hard problem' is simply the phenomenal nature of simple red vs 
green.  And within the visual system this is the most obvios, solid, and 
simple.  So, the theory goes, this is where we should first focus our 
efforts to achieve an understanding of this 'hard problem'.

The theory also predicts that this 'hard problem' is the only 'hard 
problem'.  In other words, once we fully understand how and what simple 
red vs green are, and how they are unified into 3d realms of awareness - 
this combined with simply more advance and complex information 
processing theory, will be all that is required to fully understand and 
reproduce all of consciousness.

So, before you can hope to understand what red vs green are, you have to 
admit that they exist and are fundamentally important.  Then you also 
have to know what they are a property of (i.e. where they are located).  
Most of the 'nuts and bolts' neural researchers either don't believe 
that qualia exist, or they are looking for them in the wrong place.  
This is the only reason we haven't found them yet.  When you go to 'nuts 
and bolts' neural conferences, they refuse to even consider anything 
like qualia - and this is the big problem.

As evidence, at the recent Decade of the Mind conference, Christof Koch, 
and me for asking him a question on qualia during a forum, were 
attacked, and many there claimed 'nobody is interested in that here'.  
See: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/91


If we can attack and resolve this issue, and get the 'nuts and bolts' 
neural researchers to understand representationalism, and what 
phenomenal properties are - I believe discovering them will be easy and 
almost immediate.  And that this will be THE  most important scientific 
discovery ever.  Hence the motivation for a topic like this to concisely 
measure scientific consensus:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6

There is a powerful 'scientific consensus' amongst theoretical 
researchers of the mind surrounding  representationaism as is clearly 
becoming evident in the above topic/camp.  There are various competing 
theories describind in supporting sub camps about what 'qualia' are and 
how that are concicely stated and quantitatively measured in the 
supporting sub camps of the above representational super camp.  All this 
lack of consensus about what qualia are is much less important than how 
much consensus there is on the idea of representationalism as stated in 
that super camp.

We believe no other theory can achieve anywhere close to the amount of 
consensus amongst experts than this representational theory is already 
achieving.  Once this theory finally clearly stands out from all the 
noise and all the many junk theories of consciousness, the 'nuts and 
bolts' neural researchers will finally 'get it' and start looking for 
the right stuff in the right place in the right way.  And soon 
thereafter the most important and world changing scientific discovery of 
all time will be made (at least this is what the theory predicts.)   And 
this discovery, along with more advanced information and AI theory, will 
finally give us the ability to understand consciousness in its 
entirety.  Additionally, after all this, the world and humanity will 
soon become unrecognizable in almost every way compared to what it is today.

So, will you support our effort, join this camp, and help enlighten the 
world, to help bring all this to pass sooner?:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6

It'd be great to also get your phenomenal papers 'canonized' with this 
list of other representational publications:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/85

Upward,

Brent Allsop





Ian Goddard wrote:
>> I didn't know you were a representationalist.  
>>     
>
>  Thanks for the good words and invite! When I wrote [*] for ought I knew 
> it was a new idea. I was pondering the question, since my percept of a 
> star in the heavens is actually just photos from a star that have struck 
> my optic nerve and been processed in my brain, how is it that the percept 
> appears 'out there'. Suddenly I concluded that what I see as being 'out 
> there' must be a model in my brain built up from sensory data emanating 
> from a real 'out there' that I can't see directly except by way of neural 
> acquisition and representation.
>
>  Then, while doing research for my longer paper in the student journal I ran into Lehar's extensive work and found that the idea goes way back.
>
>
>   
>> I'm betting we'll soon be able to congratulate each other as being the 
>> first members of the camp that represents THE ONE true theory of 
>> consciousness.
>>     
>
>  I don't know what representationalism tells use about consciousness. I 
> see it as a mechanical way of assembling percepts for an 'observer', ie, 
> a conscious self. But this process does not necessarily entail an 
> observer. Take for example 'absence epilepsy' during which an epileptic 
> can interact with the world, but only in a mechanical lifeless way. By all 
> appearances, both from other observers and the epileptic afterward, there 
> was no conscious self there during the seizure. And yet it seems clear 
> that the brain was assembling a model of the world all the while.
>
>  Also, there can be things in our field of vision that we fail to notice, 
> even though the brain assembled a representation of them. So it seems like 
> the conscious self is something still higher. I suspect we agree about 
> that. Obviously consciousness is an exceedingly complex and mysterious 
> issue. But I'd be interested to know how you see representationalism as 
> an inherent feature of the right theory of consciousness. Though I 
> suspect you can't have a conscious being interacting with the world in 
> complex ways without that being having assembled a world model. ~Ian
>
> _______________________________________________________________________
> [*] http://www.iangoddard.com/paranorm.htm
>
>
> http://IanGoddard.com
>
> "It is Art, and Art only, that reveals us to ourselves." - Oscar Wilde
>
>  
>
>
>       
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>   



From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Sat Jan 24 17:42:59 2009
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 10:42:59 -0700
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090122153141.02712f20@satx.rr.com>
References: <418994.14972.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090122153141.02712f20@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <497B5323.7080709@comcast.net>


Damien,

Absolutely.   You are another person that has clearly become enlightened.

What, then, do you have against explicitly declaring such, joining this 
camp and helping the rest of the world finally become enlightened so we 
can finally climb up to the next level?

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6

Brent Allsop





Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 12:42 PM 1/22/2009 -0800, Ian G. wrote:
>
>> When I wrote [*] for aught I knew
>> it was a new idea. I was pondering the question, since my percept of a
>> star in the heavens is actually just photos from a star that have struck
>> my optic nerve and been processed in my brain, how is it that the 
>> percept
>> appears 'out there'. Suddenly I concluded that what I see as being 'out
>> there' must be a model in my brain
>> [*] http://www.iangoddard.com/paranorm.htm
>
> Mental modeling has been investigated for decades, of course (and 
> seems to me self-evident); see, e.g. Philip Johnson-Laird's, um, 
> MENTAL MODELS (1983) and lots of work by Stephen Kosslyn and his 
> associates; from Wiki on Kosslyn: "Image and Mind (1980), Ghosts in 
> the Mind's Machine (1983), Wet Mind (1992, with Olivier Koenig), 
> ...Image and Brain (1994), The Case for Mental Imagery (2006, with 
> Thompson and Ganis)" etc.
>
> Your 1999 explanation for out of body experiences is pretty much the 
> same reached by psychologist/memeticist Susan Blackmore's (summarized 
> in Beyond the Body: An Investigation of Out-Of-The-Body Experiences, 
> Academy Chicago Publishers, 1983).
>
> 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  Sat Jan 24 18:13:48 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:13:48 -0600
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <497B5323.7080709@comcast.net>
References: <418994.14972.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090122153141.02712f20@satx.rr.com>
	<497B5323.7080709@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090124121153.022d0b20@satx.rr.com>

At 10:42 AM 1/24/2009 -0700, Brent wrote:

>You are another person that has clearly become enlightened.
>
>What, then, do you have against explicitly declaring such, joining 
>this camp and helping the rest of the world finally become 
>enlightened so we can finally climb up to the next level?

What's with all this hyperbolic and religiose language? "Next 
level"?! Calm down.

Damien Broderick 



From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Sat Jan 24 18:27:46 2009
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 11:27:46 -0700
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090124121153.022d0b20@satx.rr.com>
References: <418994.14972.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com>	<7.0.1.0.2.20090122153141.02712f20@satx.rr.com>	<497B5323.7080709@comcast.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090124121153.022d0b20@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <497B5DA2.9060201@comcast.net>


Damien,

Sorry, I guess I do get too worked up over some of this.  Thanks for the 
good advice.

It's just that I think much of the world is missing what is important 
and obvious about consciousness, and that this is keeping us from making 
what I believe will be THE most important scientific discovery of all 
time.  And that this discovery will change the world, for the better, 
more than any other scientific achievement.  (i.e. will finally enable 
us to rise to the next level.)

Brent


Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 10:42 AM 1/24/2009 -0700, Brent wrote:
>
>> You are another person that has clearly become enlightened.
>>
>> What, then, do you have against explicitly declaring such, joining 
>> this camp and helping the rest of the world finally become 
>> enlightened so we can finally climb up to the next level?
>
> What's with all this hyperbolic and religiose language? "Next level"?! 
> Calm down.
>
> Damien Broderick
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Jan 24 18:40:39 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 13:40:39 -0500
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
References: <853373.63137.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <571CDAEB8A044EEE90058501544A196A@MyComputer>

"The Avantguardian" <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>

> Do you think that you directly perceive fundamental reality at full
> resolution?

Of course not, fundamental reality is unattainable.

> There have been many experiments that demonstrate that this is not the
> case.

That is one of the two things I object to. It annoys me to see someone state
something that is so incredibly obvious that it doesn't even need
experimental confirmation, and then treat it as if it were a major new
scientific discovery.

The other thing I object to is that a collection of atoms cannot generate
subjectivity, there must be something else. And I don't much like it that
they give no hint of what that "something" is.

> The number of people stopped at a metropolitan red-light is pretty
> convincing empirically.

It's convincing evidence that a particular wavelength of light produces the
same behavior, but what subjective experience it produces, or even if there
is any subjectivity at all we do not and will never know.

> There is but one soul and you are an instantiation of it.

Yes I agree, provided we take a few small liberties with the word "soul". I
agree that I am AN instantiation of it, I am not THE instantiation of it.
There is no reason in principle there couldn't be 6.02*10^23 instantiation
of it, all of them me.

 John K Clark




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jan 24 18:58:58 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:58:58 -0600
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <497B5DA2.9060201@comcast.net>
References: <418994.14972.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090122153141.02712f20@satx.rr.com>
	<497B5323.7080709@comcast.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090124121153.022d0b20@satx.rr.com>
	<497B5DA2.9060201@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090124124446.0263b6b0@satx.rr.com>

At 11:27 AM 1/24/2009 -0700, Brent wrote:

>I think much of the world is missing what is important and obvious 
>about consciousness, and that this is keeping us from making what I 
>believe will be THE most important scientific discovery of all 
>time.  And that this discovery will change the world, for the 
>better, more than any other scientific achievement.

Stipulating (just for the sake of argument) that qualia are real, why 
should that reality have these wonderful beneficial effects? I 
suppose it might do so if one concluded that the reality of qualia 
did indeed imply something supernatural or transcendent about 
personality, but I think you deny this, right? You're not claiming 
that qualia prove the independent survival of personality after 
material death, say?

If you're using qualia as a basis for reinforcing empathy ("Look! We 
are all alike, and share our interests as qualia-laden humans! Play 
nice! Let's sing Kumbaya!"), why does that get us any further than 
knowing we all digest our food and fire our synapses much the same way?

(By the way, I thought we were talking in this thread about 
representations and mental models, not qualia or souls.)

Damien Broderick




From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Sat Jan 24 19:27:53 2009
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 12:27:53 -0700
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <571CDAEB8A044EEE90058501544A196A@MyComputer>
References: <853373.63137.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<571CDAEB8A044EEE90058501544A196A@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <497B6BB9.7070504@comcast.net>

John K Clark wrote:
>
> The other thing I object to is that a collection of atoms cannot generate
> subjectivity, there must be something else. And I don't much like it that
> they give no hint of what that "something" is.
>

We all agree a collection of atoms has a set of behavioral qualities.  
In other words, each atom behaves in a particular way.

This theory:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/7

simply predicts that in addition to these behavioral properties, 
something about atoms also has phenomenal qualities like red, green, the 
taste of salt....  Very different than behavioral properties.  The atoms 
don't generate subjectivity, they simply have the phenomenal qualities 
subjectivity is made of.

If you shine light on a collection of atoms that have a red phenomenal 
quality (that evolution utilized to intelligently/subjectively represent 
something that reflects 700 nm light), certainly we can't expect them to 
reflect 700 nm light the way a strawberry can.  Whatever light is 
reflecting off of these atoms (or is in any way downstream from any 
cause and effect based detector) may represent what those atoms are 
like, but the light (or any causally downstream abstracted 
representation that can detect the atoms) only represents the behavior 
of the atoms.  The light or detector is phenomenally and fundamentally 
very different than the original atoms being detected.  The only way to 
know the true meaning of what the light is abstractly representing is by 
mapping the abstracted representation back to the original atoms and 
what they are phenomenally and fundamentally like.  (as in oh THAT is 
what they are like)

This is why cause and effect abstracting observation is blind to such 
phenomenal properties.  Something physically different can represent 
them, but such abstracted representations must be grounded by actual 
phenomenal experience (as when you 'eff' the ineffable) before you can 
know, phenomenally, what they are really like - or what the 
representations need to be mapped back to, in order to know what they 
represent fundamentally and phenomenally.

Just as we don't know why atoms behave in a particular causal way, there 
is nothing 'mystical' or 'impossible' with the theory that in addition 
to causal behavior, particular atoms in our brain (or something closely 
related to them) also have particular phenomenal properties.

Brent Allsop



















From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Sat Jan 24 20:04:12 2009
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 13:04:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090124124446.0263b6b0@satx.rr.com>
References: <418994.14972.qm@web52706.mail.re2.yahoo.com>	<7.0.1.0.2.20090122153141.02712f20@satx.rr.com>	<497B5323.7080709@comcast.net>	<7.0.1.0.2.20090124121153.022d0b20@satx.rr.com>	<497B5DA2.9060201@comcast.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090124124446.0263b6b0@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <497B743C.30506@comcast.net>


Damien,

The most popular theories out there now are things like there is no such 
thing as qualia, or that there is some spirit that survives the death of 
the brain in an 'out of body' way.  Many problems in the world, and in 
our philosophical understanding can be traced backed to such terribly 
mistaken theories of reality and what we are.

What we all imagine the future to be is critically based on these kinds 
of assumptions.  The religious people believe that their 'spirit' will 
leave their corrupted dead mortal body and go to heaven to reside with God.

Those that think qualia (or consciousness, really) don't exist, think an 
abstract representation of their brain will be created in some abstract 
super computer.  They will then be happy with letting the original be 
destroyed, and consider this abstract representation to be themselves 
'uploaded'.  They figure the 'Turing test', or that the uploads 
behavior, is all that is important to the 'upload' and to reality itself.

All these obviously erroneous theories are leading people to have very 
mistaken views of reality, of what is important, of what we must do to 
progress or to survive mortality, of how to discover what the mind is 
and everything important about life.  The reason people haven't 
discovered what consciousness is, isn't because we lack the capability - 
it is simply because we are simply looking in the wrong place, or not 
looking for it at all.

If we have the correct theory of reality, we can finally know what we 
really are, we will finally know what is important (things like effing 
the ineffable and merging and sharing conscious phenomenal worlds of 
awareness) and what phenomenal consciously unified heavens will be 
like.  (can you imagine knowing much more than just half of what sex is 
like when two spirits are in the same unified conscious phenomenal 
space?)  People will finally realize that the world is much more than 
just cause and effect behavior - that it is also phenomenal.

We will finally realize that our 'spirits' are just phenomenal 
representations of ourselves in our brains.  We will realize that this 
knowledge of ourselves has no referent in reality, unlike our knowledge 
of the world arround us, the knowledge of our bodies including the 
knowledge of our skulls from which our phenomenal spirits are 
represented as peering out of.  We will finally realize that we can and 
should start merging these phenomenal worlds together.  We will finally 
realize that doing so will finally free our 'spirits' from the mortal 
prison walls that are our skulls....  We will finally know what 
uploading will really be like.

And so on.  In other worlds, our view of the future, what it will be 
like, and what we will be able to do, will drastically change.

We can't get to the next level, if we have completely mistaken ideas 
about what that next level is, and are trying to make it into something 
it can't be.

Brent Allsop










Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 11:27 AM 1/24/2009 -0700, Brent wrote:
>
>> I think much of the world is missing what is important and obvious 
>> about consciousness, and that this is keeping us from making what I 
>> believe will be THE most important scientific discovery of all time.  
>> And that this discovery will change the world, for the better, more 
>> than any other scientific achievement.
>
> Stipulating (just for the sake of argument) that qualia are real, why 
> should that reality have these wonderful beneficial effects? I suppose 
> it might do so if one concluded that the reality of qualia did indeed 
> imply something supernatural or transcendent about personality, but I 
> think you deny this, right? You're not claiming that qualia prove the 
> independent survival of personality after material death, say?
>
> If you're using qualia as a basis for reinforcing empathy ("Look! We 
> are all alike, and share our interests as qualia-laden humans! Play 
> nice! Let's sing Kumbaya!"), why does that get us any further than 
> knowing we all digest our food and fire our synapses much the same way?
>
> (By the way, I thought we were talking in this thread about 
> representations and mental models, not qualia or souls.)
>
> 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  Sat Jan 24 21:11:28 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:11:28 -0600
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <497B6BB9.7070504@comcast.net>
References: <853373.63137.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<571CDAEB8A044EEE90058501544A196A@MyComputer>
	<497B6BB9.7070504@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090124150459.02622458@satx.rr.com>

At 12:27 PM 1/24/2009 -0700, Brent wrote:

>in addition to these behavioral properties, something about atoms 
>also has phenomenal qualities like red, green, the taste of 
>salt....  Very different than behavioral properties.  The atoms 
>don't generate subjectivity, they simply have the phenomenal 
>qualities subjectivity is made of.

NO NO NO NO. I don't think even Chalmers claims that (but maybe he 
does, he says a lot of strange things). Do you really suppose that 
the carbon and other atoms in a working cow muscle have *intrinsic* 
"leggish" phenomenal qualities that mysteriously morph into "yuckish 
rotten" phenomenal qualities if the steak is left out for the maggots 
to get at? Or is that too high-level? But there is no red-ness, 
either, in atoms, any more than there is yummy-ness or barf-ness.

Omg, I'm agreeing with John Clark!

Damien Broderick 



From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Sat Jan 24 22:46:36 2009
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 15:46:36 -0700
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090124150459.02622458@satx.rr.com>
References: <853373.63137.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>	<571CDAEB8A044EEE90058501544A196A@MyComputer>	<497B6BB9.7070504@comcast.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090124150459.02622458@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <497B9A4C.3090105@comcast.net>


Damien,

No, most other representationalists do not agree with me, that nature 
has phenomenal properties.

Chalmers (at least he argues this point in the  paper mentioned in that 
camp), Steve Lehar, Stathis Papaiuanue, and other's sub camp on this 
issue is represented here:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/8

The scientific consensus at that level is clearly for that camp.

My camp, a competitor to the above is here:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/7

Though we disagree on just what  qualia are, we do agree that perception 
is representational, as stated in the parent super camp we are all in here:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6

 From how you described what I tried to say, you clearly didn't 
understand what I was trying to say.  I apologize for it not being more 
clear.

Brent Allsop


Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 12:27 PM 1/24/2009 -0700, Brent wrote:
>
>> in addition to these behavioral properties, something about atoms 
>> also has phenomenal qualities like red, green, the taste of salt....  
>> Very different than behavioral properties.  The atoms don't generate 
>> subjectivity, they simply have the phenomenal qualities subjectivity 
>> is made of.
>
> NO NO NO NO. I don't think even Chalmers claims that (but maybe he 
> does, he says a lot of strange things). Do you really suppose that the 
> carbon and other atoms in a working cow muscle have *intrinsic* 
> "leggish" phenomenal qualities that mysteriously morph into "yuckish 
> rotten" phenomenal qualities if the steak is left out for the maggots 
> to get at? Or is that too high-level? But there is no red-ness, 
> either, in atoms, any more than there is yummy-ness or barf-ness.
>
> Omg, I'm agreeing with John Clark!
>
> Damien Broderick
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jan 24 22:37:29 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 14:37:29 -0800
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <571CDAEB8A044EEE90058501544A196A@MyComputer>
References: <853373.63137.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<571CDAEB8A044EEE90058501544A196A@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <5C29E481F82A4162A44AD80D8FCFFEFE@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of John K Clark
...
> There is no reason in principle there couldn't be 6.02*10^23 
> instantiation of it, all of them me.
> 
>  John K Clark

John would that be an example of mole-a-clark-emistry?

spike



Hmm, that is such a lame pun.  Surely better ones are there, but I am in a
hurry and need to drop that one before someone else gets in there.



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jan 24 23:34:27 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 17:34:27 -0600
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <497B9A4C.3090105@comcast.net>
References: <853373.63137.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
	<571CDAEB8A044EEE90058501544A196A@MyComputer>
	<497B6BB9.7070504@comcast.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090124150459.02622458@satx.rr.com>
	<497B9A4C.3090105@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090124172204.022e41a8@satx.rr.com>

At 03:46 PM 1/24/2009 -0700, Brent wrote:

> From how you described what I tried to say, you clearly didn't 
> understand what I was trying to say.

But you wrote:

>>in addition to these behavioral properties, something about atoms 
>>also has phenomenal qualities like red, green, the taste of salt....

A "phenomenal quality" can only be something that gives rise to an 
experience of a thing or process *in an experiencer* (if you are 
using the terminology of phenomenology). If a thrown sugar cube hits 
you in the eye and gives rise to pain, it is the inertia and certain 
crystal properties of the rigidly arranged atoms that have done this 
in combination with nerves in the vicinity of your eye, and further 
processing by your nervous system. But there are no "pain" qualities 
in the sugar cube; neither are there "taste of sweetness" qualities. 
Are there, then, "white" qualities? No, except as part of the 
transaction of the cube's atoms and your atoms.

I happen to see slightly different shades of any given color from the 
same object depending on whether I use my right or left eye. It's not 
the "phenomenal quality" of the apple that changes. But you might 
argue that this is beside the point, since if the apple entirely 
lacked "phenomenal qualities" I wouldn't be able to see it at all (or 
something). You might propose that "dark matter" (actually 
*transparent* matter) is like that, except for its gravity. I think 
all this would just be a muddle.

Damien Broderick 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jan 25 04:34:03 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 22:34:03 -0600
Subject: [ExI] M0 singularity... you're soaking in it
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090124223119.02467168@satx.rr.com>

Look at the chart at the site:

<http://www.safehaven.com/showarticle.cfm?id=12403&pv=1>

The author comments:

<...I can't believe what is happening in narrow money. M0, the 
narrowest measure, is usually called the monetary base. It is simply 
currency (coins and paper dollars) in circulation and in bank vaults 
plus reserves commercial banks have on deposit with the Fed. These 
reserves are critical because they are the base from which all other 
forms of money such as checking accounts are created. The monetary 
base directly controls the ultimate size of fractional-reserve banking.

Until late 2008, I hadn't looked at M0 for years. Why? Even the Fed 
isn't foolish enough to change it too much. For decades it has 
traveled in a tight range between about 2% and 10% annual growth, 
with a pre-panic average since 1960 of 6.0%. M0 growth less real 
economic growth is one of the most basic measures of inflation. If M0 
grows at 6% and the underlying economy at 3%, then there is 
relatively 3% more money available to spend on goods and services. 
This is inflation.

I was reading a book last month that discussed the monetary base's 
direct impact on inflation. So I decided to take a look at M0 again. 
I could not believe what the data showed, I almost fell out of my 
chair it was so mind-blowing. Per the Fed's own data, we have just 
witnessed the most inflationary event in modern history. This crazy 
monetary base chart will make even the most rabid deflationist very uneasy.

[chart]

M0 has gone parabolic! Year-over-year in December 2008, it was up 
98.9%! This is so shocking it defies belief. In late September as the 
stock panic started, it had grown by 9.9% over the past year. By 
October, this rate ballooned to an all-time high of 36.7%. In 
November, it rocketed again to 73.0%. And in December, it surged up 
to the staggering 98.9% you can see above. Ben Bernanke's Fed has 
doubled the monetary base in a single year! Holy cow. > 



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sun Jan 25 05:46:27 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2009 23:46:27 -0600
Subject: [ExI] I'm not sure I understand..please enlighten me.
In-Reply-To: <43D2FCB444E64C4096B8D20ADF9C959B@spike>
References: <mailman.95.1232514474.12759.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
	<497A36A1.9010600@lineone.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090123161714.024a2820@satx.rr.com>
	<43D2FCB444E64C4096B8D20ADF9C959B@spike>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090124234322.023b20a8@satx.rr.com>

At 02:33 PM 1/23/2009 -0800, Spike wrote:

>If a dentist is one who does dental work for a living and an artist creates
>art professionally, then how do we define a sexist?

Much the same as a racist, but slower. And probably more insidious. :-|

Damien Broderick 



From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sun Jan 25 05:46:35 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 00:46:35 -0500
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
References: <853373.63137.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><571CDAEB8A044EEE90058501544A196A@MyComputer>
	<497B6BB9.7070504@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <621D95FBCDB54CE19A3F346E215E8858@MyComputer>

"Brent Allsop" <brent.allsop at comcast.net>

> something about atoms also has phenomenal qualities like red,
> green, the taste of salt....  Very different than behavioral properties.

Let's see, when an atom of chlorine is with a sodium atom it has the
phenomenal quality of being salty, but when it is alone it has the
phenomenal qualities of stinky and pain. An atom of carbon in a diamond has
the phenomenal quality of hardness, but when it is in graphite it changes to
softness.

Almost certainly right now in my brain there is an atom of carbon that was
once in your brain; so it once had the  brentallsopian  phenomenal property
but now that same atom has the  johnkclarkian phenomenal property. So an
atom's phenomenal properties depend on it's relationship with other nearby
atoms, which is exactly equivalent to saying that such properties don't
exist; much better to just concentrate on the relationship of those atoms;
your mumbo jumbo brings nothing to the table.

> cause and effect abstracting observation is blind to such phenomenal
> properties

If it's blind to cause and effect then it's not science, it's not even good
philosophy because you can't do anything with it, the thing doesn't lead
anywhere; and the reason for that is that it has no effect.

> we do agree that perception is representational

I certainly agree with that, but apparently you don't. You say there must be
"something" in the matter that makes up a strawberry that has the red
phenomenal quality. If true then the 700nm electromagnetic photons reflected
off it must have that quality too; after all light is the only way we know
it is red; so if atoms have this very interesting property then photons of
light must have it too. So it you're right there is nothing representational
about it, you are seeing the thing itself. If you're right then a 700nm
photon of light really is the subjective experience of red.

And that is ridicules!

   John K Clark




From stefan.pernar at gmail.com  Sun Jan 25 10:45:32 2009
From: stefan.pernar at gmail.com (Stefan Pernar)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:45:32 +0800
Subject: [ExI] M0 singularity... you're soaking in it
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090124223119.02467168@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090124223119.02467168@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <944947f20901250245m4f8e2627t633b6cc700cf9c33@mail.gmail.com>

Not too late to buy gold yet - or even better: silver :-)
Stefan

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 12:34 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com>wrote:

> Look at the chart at the site:
>
> <http://www.safehaven.com/showarticle.cfm?id=12403&pv=1>
>
> The author comments:
> <SNIP>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
Stefan Pernar
Skype: Stefan.Pernar
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090125/aa1a198d/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Jan 25 13:00:59 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:00:59 +0000
Subject: [ExI] M0 singularity... you're soaking in it
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090124223119.02467168@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090124223119.02467168@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0901250500q3b8f0ca8u21daa2f29445a940@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 4:34 AM, Damien Broderick wrote:
> Look at the chart at the site:
> <http://www.safehaven.com/showarticle.cfm?id=12403&pv=1>
>
> The author comments:
> ...I can't believe what is happening in narrow money. M0, the narrowest
> measure, is usually called the monetary base. It is simply currency (coins
> and paper dollars) in circulation and in bank vaults plus reserves
> commercial banks have on deposit with the Fed. These reserves are critical
> because they are the base from which all other forms of money such as
> checking accounts are created. The monetary base directly controls the
> ultimate size of fractional-reserve banking.
>


Don't look for easy, 'one indicator explains everything' solutions.
The Safe Haven writers tend generally to be gold bulls. They see the
solution to every financial problem as 'Buy gold!'.  Historically this
has not always been the best option. (Though if you are a gold bullion
dealer, you do like people to buy and sell gold at all times).
As with all investments, you have to try to buy cheap and sell dear.

Yes, M0 has hugely increased. But the current problem is global
insolvency. Debt, in plain-speak. The pile of debt dwarfs the money
supply increase. New money causes inflation when people spend it, buy
stuff and drive the price up. For years to come, people will be using
any extra money to pay debt off and clear the decks for a fresh start.
After that has happened, you can start worrying about inflation.

See
<http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2009/01/is-big-inflation-coming.html>
for a criticism of the orginal article and more explanation.


BillK


From mbb386 at main.nc.us  Sun Jan 25 13:51:49 2009
From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 08:51:49 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ExI] M0 singularity... you're soaking in it
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090124223119.02467168@satx.rr.com>
References: <7.0.1.0.2.20090124223119.02467168@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <35199.12.77.168.223.1232891509.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>


>
> M0 has gone parabolic! Year-over-year in December 2008, it was up
> 98.9%! This is so shocking it defies belief. In late September as the
> stock panic started, it had grown by 9.9% over the past year. By
> October, this rate ballooned to an all-time high of 36.7%. In
> November, it rocketed again to 73.0%. And in December, it surged up
> to the staggering 98.9% you can see above. Ben Bernanke's Fed has
> doubled the monetary base in a single year! Holy cow. >
>

:)  This is, IIUC, why the so called "lunatic fringe" continue to rage on about
tying the money supply to gold.


Regards,
MB



From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sun Jan 25 15:51:21 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 07:51:21 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] M0 singularity... you're soaking in it
In-Reply-To: <35199.12.77.168.223.1232891509.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>
Message-ID: <457392.19424.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

> Ben Bernanke's Fed has doubled the monetary base in a single year! 
> Holy cow.

Normally the Fed responds to tough economic times by reducing short term interest rates. But short term rates have reached their lower bound. We're in a zero interest rate economy. The Fed has run out of bullets, or at least it has run out of bullets of the conventional kind.

To stimulate the economy in this zero interest rate economy, the Fed can try to expand the money supply directly. The code phrase for this is "quantitative easing". 

The Bank of Japan tried something like it in the 90s. It didn't work very well. Banks held onto the money instead of lending it. The Japanese economy languished for years. It seems we face the same scenario in the US.

This chart below shows the M1 Multiplier. Normally the multiplier is well above 1, meaning that for every dollar added to the banking system, more than one dollar is added to the money supply. The Multiplier is normally well above 1 because banks lend the money, which gets spent and saved and re-lent. As the chart shows, the M1 Multiplier has fallen off a cliff. As far as I know, this is the first time in modern history that the M1 Multiplier has fallen below 1.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/MULT?cid=25

As for inflation concerns, in response to the financial crisis the spread between the yields on ten year treasury bonds and TIPS (ten year treasury inflation protected securities) dropped radically from more than 2% to near 0%. This means investors in treasury bonds have stopped demanding compensation for inflation risk. If this market is efficient (and it might not be, but that's another discussion) then the TIPS spread is telling us to expect virtually no inflation for the next ten years. But a little inflation is a good thing; this indicator is as worrisome as the others, and suggests that deflation/depression is the greater risk going forward.

These disturbing developments argue for fiscal stimulus: tax cuts and government spending.

-gts


      


From spike66 at att.net  Sun Jan 25 16:32:30 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 08:32:30 -0800
Subject: [ExI] M0 singularity... you're soaking in it
In-Reply-To: <457392.19424.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <35199.12.77.168.223.1232891509.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>
	<457392.19424.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <809F6686D9C547918887546EE7023D40@spike>

 

> ...On Behalf Of Gordon Swobe
> Subject: Re: [ExI] M0 singularity... you're soaking in it
> 
> > Ben Bernanke's Fed has doubled the monetary base in a single year! 
> > Holy cow.
> 
> Normally the Fed responds to tough economic times by reducing 
> short term interest rates. But short term rates have reached ...
> -gts


Thanks Gordon, your post is an excellent and calm explanation, the best I
have seen in a frenzy of panicky news articles.  I have been a deer in the
headlights the past few months, wondering where to move my savings.  

While we debate about inflation/deflation, do take a trip down to the local
hardware store.  The loss leader tools are selling for about a quarter of
what they were two years ago.  I suspect a number of Chinese factories are
dumping in a wild panic to liquidate stock.  For instance, last month I
bought a drill, 11 bucks, a grinder, 12 bucks, a jigsaw, 11 bucks, yesterday
a set of wood clamps, 14 bucks for a set of 15.  A year ago those were more
like 5 to 7 bucks for each clamp, with the set about 100.  They are
surprisingly solid tools.

The Chinese could scarcely ship those tools over the sea for the price they
are getting.  Explanations welcome.

spike








From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Sun Jan 25 17:49:52 2009
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 10:49:52 -0700
Subject: [ExI] M0 singularity... you're soaking in it
In-Reply-To: <809F6686D9C547918887546EE7023D40@spike>
References: <35199.12.77.168.223.1232891509.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>	<457392.19424.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<809F6686D9C547918887546EE7023D40@spike>
Message-ID: <497CA640.4000100@comcast.net>



Yes, Gordan, thanks for this very educational info.

The Adam Hamilton article did seeme very biased towards gold freaks.

His first MZM Money and CPI chart compared the CPI growth rate with the 
MZM money supply growth rate.

Durring the year 2006 it proclaimed that the money supply growth rate 
was : "stable, matches CPI", but this doesn't take into account that 
there was also a simple significant growth in the number of people, 
companies, immigrants during 2006.  So if they 'match' like this there 
is some significant deflationary pressure really going on right?  Such 
numbers aren't "stable" at all?

So, Gordan, help me better understand this "M1 Multiplier".  So if it is 
negative, that means that the fed is injecting 'new' (or printed money) 
by purchasing bonds and such (M0), but people simply aren't spending 
this money and keeping it in cache?

And if so, this is exactly what I was thinking of as I read the Adam 
Hamilton article.  I  figured the money must occasionally do things like 
double during a single year to help get us out of panics like this where 
people hoard cache.  A negative "M1 Multiplier" is evidence that this is 
happening or that cache is being horded?

How would this differ if people were hoarding money in real cache in 
places like mattresses verses their cache savings accounts?  Would that 
change this M1 Multiplier?

Either way, it is very exciting to see this kind of long term geometric 
growth in the amount of money we all have.  We really are soaking in the 
singularity.

Brent Allsop



spike wrote:
>  
>
>   
>> ...On Behalf Of Gordon Swobe
>> Subject: Re: [ExI] M0 singularity... you're soaking in it
>>
>>     
>>> Ben Bernanke's Fed has doubled the monetary base in a single year! 
>>> Holy cow.
>>>       
>> Normally the Fed responds to tough economic times by reducing 
>> short term interest rates. But short term rates have reached ...
>> -gts
>>     
>
>
> Thanks Gordon, your post is an excellent and calm explanation, the best I
> have seen in a frenzy of panicky news articles.  I have been a deer in the
> headlights the past few months, wondering where to move my savings.  
>
> While we debate about inflation/deflation, do take a trip down to the local
> hardware store.  The loss leader tools are selling for about a quarter of
> what they were two years ago.  I suspect a number of Chinese factories are
> dumping in a wild panic to liquidate stock.  For instance, last month I
> bought a drill, 11 bucks, a grinder, 12 bucks, a jigsaw, 11 bucks, yesterday
> a set of wood clamps, 14 bucks for a set of 15.  A year ago those were more
> like 5 to 7 bucks for each clamp, with the set about 100.  They are
> surprisingly solid tools.
>
> The Chinese could scarcely ship those tools over the sea for the price they
> are getting.  Explanations welcome.
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
>   



From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Jan 25 18:40:18 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:40:18 +0000
Subject: [ExI] M0 singularity... you're soaking in it
In-Reply-To: <497CA640.4000100@comcast.net>
References: <35199.12.77.168.223.1232891509.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>
	<457392.19424.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<809F6686D9C547918887546EE7023D40@spike>
	<497CA640.4000100@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0901251040x54df8ce5nb7b3811f765cb126@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jan 25, 2009 at 5:49 PM, Brent Allsop  wrote:
<snip>
> How would this differ if people were hoarding money in real cache in places
> like mattresses verses their cache savings accounts?  Would that change this
> M1 Multiplier?
>
> Either way, it is very exciting to see this kind of long term geometric
> growth in the amount of money we all have.  We really are soaking in the
> singularity.
>


I don't see it like that, Brent.
People aren't hoarding cash. The banks *are*, because they are hoping
they can hoard enough over time, that people don't notice they are
sitting on huge debts and are technically insolvent.

The debt mountain is the problem.
<http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/20/magazines/fortune/okeefe_schiff.fortune/index.htm?section=money_latest>
Quote:
As he outlined in 2007 in his first book, Crash Proof: How to Profit
>From the Coming Economic Collapse, Schiff believes that the U.S.
economy has become dangerously and unsustainably dependent on
consumption - fueled by trillions of dollars borrowed mainly from
Asian countries like Japan and China.

"We have an economy that's based on the same principles as Bernie
Madoff's investments," he says. "It's a Ponzi economy. It's not real.
We don't save and we don't produce anything anymore. We simply borrow
from the rest of the world, and then we spend it. We've had a giant
party. We bought all these plasma TVs and iPods. We remodeled our
houses and took vacations. But you know what? The bills are coming
in."


BillK


From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Sun Jan 25 18:40:46 2009
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:40:46 -0700
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090124172204.022e41a8@satx.rr.com>
References: <853373.63137.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>	<571CDAEB8A044EEE90058501544A196A@MyComputer>	<497B6BB9.7070504@comcast.net>	<7.0.1.0.2.20090124150459.02622458@satx.rr.com>	<497B9A4C.3090105@comcast.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090124172204.022e41a8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <497CB22E.6040202@comcast.net>

Damien Broderick wrote:
> If the apple entirely lacked "phenomenal qualities" I wouldn't be able 
> to see it at all (or something).
And

John K Clark wrote:
> Let's see, when an atom of chlorine is with a sodium atom it has the
> phenomenal quality of being salty, but when it is alone it has the
> phenomenal qualities of stinky and pain. An atom of carbon in a 
> diamond has
> the phenomenal quality of hardness, but when it is in graphite it 
> changes to
> softness.
>
No, you guys obviously aren't fully understanding this theory yet.

This theory predicts that the apple, the sodium chloride, or anything 
like that has no phenomenal qualities that we know of.  They only have 
cause and effect behavioral properties.

The only thing we find  out about the strawberry from looking at it, is 
the fact that it reflects 700 nm light (a causal behavioral property).  
This is nothing like a fundamental phenomenal property.  If the surface 
of a strawbery, or sodium choloride do have phenomenal properties, we 
can't know such through an abstracting cause and effect observation.  
All we can know about them is how they behave causally, not what they 
are fundamentally and phenomenally like.  Our brain represents them with 
something that has these fundamental phenomenal qualities like red and 
the taste of salt.  Some people likely represent sodium chloride very 
differently than the norm, just as you'll represent the strawberry with 
green if you  have a red/green inverter some where in the perception 
process.

Phenomenal red, is a property of something, our conscious knowledge, in 
our head that evolution has used to represent the fact that the 
strawberry behaves in such a way that it reflects 700 nm light.

That is why in the image used in the camp statement here:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6

the external world is represented with black and white stick figures.  
There are no phenomenal qualities, that we are aware of, outside of our 
brain.  The fact that phenomenal qualities exist in our brain 
scientifically proves something in nature has them, but the  nature our 
abstracting blind to phenomenal qualities senses detect may or may not 
have them - we just don't know till we discover what they are (or more 
accurately, what has them), and how to eff them.


Also it seems you guys don't yet fully understand the purpose of finding 
as much agreement or scientific consensus as possible in canonized POV 
structures.

John K Clark wrote:
> "Brent Allsop" <brent.allsop at comcast.net>
>> we do agree that perception is representational
>
> I certainly agree with that, but apparently you don't.
This camp here is for all representationalists:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6

Various competing theories about what qualia are, and so on, within 
representationalism, are represented in the supporting sub camps.  For 
example, currently the most scientific consensus is for this camp, 
argued by David Chalmers, and is about phenomenal properties arising 
from any functionally equivalent computational substrate:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/8

The 'nature has phenomenal properties' camp is a very different 
competing representational sub theory:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/8

that says rather than qualia rising from any functionally equivalent 
substrate, something in nature simply has them.  Obviously this theory 
has far less scientific consensus than the camp shared by Chalmers and 
Steve Lehar.

So, if you guys claim to be representationalists, then is there anything 
in this camp that you disagree with?:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6

If so, then we should get that info moved into a suporting sub camp so 
the representational camp can be inclusive of your representationalism.  
How do we do that?  Only you guys can tell us this, if we are to make 
this survey concisely and quantitatively include what it is you guys 
believe.

What is it, you guys do believe?  Do you guys really know?  I sure have 
a hard time figuring it out.  Are you representationalists or not?  If 
you do know, shouldn't you be able to concisely and definitively state such?

Brent Allsop








From brian at posthuman.com  Sun Jan 25 19:08:39 2009
From: brian at posthuman.com (Brian Atkins)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 13:08:39 -0600
Subject: [ExI] M0 singularity... you're soaking in it
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0901251040x54df8ce5nb7b3811f765cb126@mail.gmail.com>
References: <35199.12.77.168.223.1232891509.squirrel@www.main.nc.us>	<457392.19424.qm@web36501.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<809F6686D9C547918887546EE7023D40@spike>	<497CA640.4000100@comcast.net>
	<ee50357e0901251040x54df8ce5nb7b3811f765cb126@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <497CB8B7.3050405@posthuman.com>

These concepts tie into the velocity of money which is worth reading up on. Here 
is one take:

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2008/12/the-velocity-factor/

-- 
Brian Atkins
Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
http://www.singinst.org/


From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Jan 25 19:43:28 2009
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:43:28 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
Message-ID: <933965.74449.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>

--- On Sat, 1/24/09, John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> The other thing I object to is that a collection of atoms
> cannot generate
> subjectivity, there must be something else. And I don't
> much like it that
> they give no hint of what that "something" is.

That something is a dynamic well defined pattern of motion as opposed to an entropic non-patterned motion. The stuff of consciousness, even life itself, is an organized pattern of energy like a ballet. Atoms are like ballerinas and changing the ballerinas does not change 'Swan Lake' appreciably. But a bunch of ballerinas milling about an opera house is certainly not an enactment of 'Swan Lake'. 

Subjectivity is not a property of the atoms, it is a recursive procedure that the atoms carry out; a strange loop of cooperative interlacing functional feedback that constantly updates itself. Subjectivity is an ongoing cycle of information gathering and decision making. If something did not percieve qualia, then it would be unable to make decisions based on those qualia. In other words a worm is more conscious than a philosophic zombie. If a worm gets too hot it would move. A philosophic zombie, unable to experience the qualia "hot", would not.   
 
> > The number of people stopped at a metropolitan
> red-light is pretty
> > convincing empirically.
> 
> It's convincing evidence that a particular wavelength
> of light produces the
> same behavior, but what subjective experience it produces,
> or even if there
> is any subjectivity at all we do not and will never know.

Statistically it is a near certainty that the light produces a subjective experience. A creature that did not experience subjective qualia could not possibly survive natural selection. Without the perception of qualia like pain or fear, philosophic zombies would have been hunted to extinction by predators ages ago. Subjective experience of qualia is merely an intermediate step between our sensory perceptions and our behaviorial reactions. That ultimate behavior is the entire reason that senses and subjective experience evolved in the first place.

Take the evolution of something that consciousness researchers take for granted, the head. The evolution of the head in animals is paralleled quite nicely by the evolution of their mobility. Sessile creatures like coral and sponges that live most of their life rooted to a single place don't need heads or nervous systems.

Once critters evolved to move around, those who concentrated their sensory apparatus toward the direction they were moving so that could "see" where they were going, were more successful at survival and reproduction. Once those senses and the information they generated became complex enough to warrant the development of a brain to process them, the head, as a phenotypic trait, was born. 

So a sea anemone does not subjectively experience "red". But is there evidence for any subjective experience at all? I say yes. They sense the distinction between 'food' and 'clown fish' for example and that distinction of information must be processed as some rudimentary quale. The end result is the decision 'sting' or 'don't sting'.

By the same token, the qualia red or green would be just as meaningless to an echolocating bat as the imagined destinction between the 'chirpy' echo of a moth or the 'clicky' echo of stink bug is to you. Once you realize that nature would have rigged it so that manure smelled like fillet mignon to dung beetles, you will understand the evolutionary purpose of subjective experience.    
  
> > There is but one soul and you are an instantiation of
> it.
> 
> Yes I agree, provided we take a few small liberties with
> the word "soul". I
> agree that I am AN instantiation of it, I am not THE
> instantiation of it.
> There is no reason in principle there couldn't be
> 6.02*10^23 instantiation
> of it, all of them me.

I can agree with that in principle, provided we take a few liberties with the word "me". I don't think a mole of you would behave quite as you expect however. A few of you might even try to express their individuality by dying their hair purple, body piercings, or some such. And if I kidnapped one of your copies as an infant, dubbed him Fred, and raised him in Cambodia, then Fred would disagree with you. Inputs are more important then substrate or else identical twins would insist on being the same person.


Stuart LaForge

"There is one thing stronger than all the armies in the world, and that is an idea whose time has come." - Victor Hugo






      


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Sun Jan 25 19:52:13 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 11:52:13 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] M0 singularity... you're soaking in it
In-Reply-To: <497CA640.4000100@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <185624.14918.qm@web36508.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

> So, Gordon, help me better understand this "M1 Multiplier".  

The M1 Multiplier has plummeted to < 1 because banks have decided to keep reserves far in excess of that required by regulations, i.e., instead of lending money, they're hoarding it. That hoarded money might help keep banks solvent, but it does little to stimulate the general economy. 

The main point I want to make is that this is a sick economy in which monetary policy has become somewhat impotent. As I mentioned, much the same thing happened in Japan some years ago. The Japanese central bank could not cut its short term interest rate below zero, nor could it force banks to lend the proceeds of its open market purchases of government securities. 

Japan's quantitative easing may have averted a full-blown depression in Japan, and it no doubt helped to keep a few Japanese banks in business, but it did not cause much growth or price inflation. 

Then again, who knows what may happen here? We live in precarious times. This is uncharted territory for the United States, and for the world in general.

-gts


      


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Mon Jan 26 02:21:14 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Sun, 25 Jan 2009 18:21:14 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] M0 singularity... you're soaking in it
Message-ID: <87299.27221.qm@web36504.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

The article at the following link describes the treasury inflation-protected yield spread (TIPS spread) that I mentioned in an earlier post. As one can see from the chart, according to this indicator inflation expectations fell dramatically from about 2.6% to nearly 0% (.13%) as the financial crisis unfolded. 

Before the crisis treasury investors demanded about 2.6% in extra yield as compensation for bearing inflation risk. After the crisis they demanded only about .13% -- basically no compensation at all. 

http://www.capitalspectator.com/archives/2008/12/welcome_to_pari.html

If the efficient market hypothesis holds for these markets; in other words, if current prices for these two classes of treasury bonds fully discount all available public information about the global economy, then we ought not feel very concerned about inflation. It would seem the efficient market disagrees vehemently with Adam Hamilton's hyperinflation thesis.

One could however consider an alternate explanation for the unusual near parity between ordinary treasury yields and inflation-protected treasury yields: perhaps only the huge market for ordinary treasuries can support the current high demand for liquidity, i.e., perhaps governments and large institutions, in their rush to safety and liquidity, cannot buy super-safe inflation-protected treasuries in large quantities without unduly affecting market prices. Such conditions would encourage large investors to buy the more volatile ordinary treasuries instead, and possibly explain the narrow TIPS spread. In that case the narrow spread might indicate increased fear of defaults and increased demand for liquidity as much or more than it does decreased inflation expectations. 

But even in that case: in a world headed toward depression, fear of defaults, demand for liquidity, and deflation/disinflation expectations should all correlate positively. It seems to me that the TIPS spread argues against hyperinflation no matter the interpretation.

-gts




      


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Jan 26 16:31:44 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 11:31:44 -0500
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
References: <853373.63137.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>	<571CDAEB8A044EEE90058501544A196A@MyComputer>	<497B6BB9.7070504@comcast.net>	<7.0.1.0.2.20090124150459.02622458@satx.rr.com>	<497B9A4C.3090105@comcast.net><7.0.1.0.2.20090124172204.022e41a8@satx.rr.com>
	<497CB22E.6040202@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <50454277786F4104ABA2433155CF0EF5@MyComputer>

On January 25, 2009 "Brent Allsop" <brent.allsop at comcast.net> Wrote:

"This theory predicts that the apple, the sodium chloride, or anything like
that has no phenomenal qualities that we know of."

On January 24, 2009 "Brent Allsop" <brent.allsop at comcast.net> Wrote:

"This theory simply predicts that in addition to these behavioral
properties, something about atoms also has phenomenal qualities like
red, green, the taste of salt."

I'll say one thing for you Brent, sometime in the last 2 days you were
right. Or perhaps you just agree with Niels Bohr who said:

"Never express yourself more clearly than you can think"

> the most scientific consensus [.] is  about phenomenal properties
> arising from any functionally equivalent computational substrate:

One of the great understatements of all time! If the scientific community
took any other position they would not only have to abandon one of the
great pillars of modern physics, exchange forces, they would also have
to abandon Darwin's theory of Evolution. That seems a very high price
to pay, especially considering that there is not the smallest particle of
experimental evidence that your ideas are correct.

> So, if you guys claim to be representationalists [.]

I make no such claim. I refuse to define myself on the basis of agreeing
with a trivial observation. Of course my subjective feeling of red is the
way my mind represents electromagnetic radiation that has a wavelength of
700nm. Have you ever met someone sane who was not a "representationalists",
somebody who thought the quale red was the same as light at that wavelength?

It seems to me all representationalists ideas can be put into one of 3
categories:

1) True but trivial
2) Wrong
3) Exercises in typing

   John K Clark






From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Mon Jan 26 21:21:44 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Mon, 26 Jan 2009 16:21:44 -0500
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
References: <933965.74449.qm@web65614.mail.ac4.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <BF7E879E580644F6B6171CCE9FD12646@MyComputer>

"The Avantguardian" <avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com>

> If something did not percieve qualia, then it would be unable to make
> decisions based on those qualia.

Exactly true! If it were not true evolution could never have produce qualia;
but here we are, qualia producing beings. Or to be precise here I am. Random
mutation and natural selection managed to produce at least one conscious
being. Probably more.

And the fact that qualia effects behavior is why the Turing Test works most
of the time.

> Statistically it is a near certainty that the light produces a subjective
> experience.

Statistics implies being able to come up with a number and I can't do that.
All I know is that I couldn't function if I believed I was the only
conscious being in the universe and I think we'll see a perpetual motion
machine before we see a zombie that behaves intelligently.

> I don't think a mole of you would behave quite as you expect however

Certainly true, as soon as the copies were made the 2 would start to receive
different inputs and thus very soon diverge into 2 separate individuals; but
they would both have an equal right to claim to be the John K Clark of
January 26 2009.

> A few of you might even try to express their individuality  by dying their
> hair purple, body piercings

Any reason to suppose I don't have purple hair, multiple body piercing, and
a tattoo of a Feynman diagram on my chest right now?

 John K Clark






From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Tue Jan 27 00:23:26 2009
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (brent.allsop at comcast.net)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 00:23:26 +0000
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
Message-ID: <012720090023.11637.497E53FD000EC82A00002D7522069984999F019C04040ED29B020A9D0D@comcast.net>


 -------------- Original message ----------------------
From: "John K Clark" <jonkc at bellsouth.net>
> On January 25, 2009 "Brent Allsop" <brent.allsop at comcast.net> Wrote:
> 
> "This theory predicts that the apple, the sodium chloride, or anything like
> that has no phenomenal qualities that we know of."
> 
> On January 24, 2009 "Brent Allsop" <brent.allsop at comcast.net> Wrote:
> 
> "This theory simply predicts that in addition to these behavioral
> properties, something about atoms also has phenomenal qualities like
> red, green, the taste of salt."
> 
> I'll say one thing for you Brent, sometime in the last 2 days you were
> right. 

You're just pulling my leg right?  You always seem to manage to miss some important piece of the puzzle.  And you are repeatedly doing this on purpose I bet.

These two were obviously said in different contexts.

The first one was talking about things up stream from our senses - or the initial causes of perception process - outside of our skull.

The second one was talking about the final result of the perception process - our knowledge of what we are perceiving.  Whatever it is in our brain that our knowledge is constructed of, does have phenomenal properties.  We just don't know what the neural correlate is that has them yet.  All this is inside of our skull.

Sodium Chloride, upstream from our senses, starts the perception process.  The final result is, something with our taste of salt, representing the cause and effect behavior of salt our taste buds are causally detecting.  Likely, some people use something with a different phenomenal quality to represent sodium chloride - in other words, salt tastes different for them.

All we know, phenomenally, is that something in our brain has our taste of salt, that is representing the sodium chloride that is coming in contact with our taste buds.  We have no idea, whether or not sodium chloride itself has anything to do with any phenomenal properties.  All we know about it is it's cause and effect behaviors - how it causes our taste buds to fire.  Our brain abstractly represents this cause and effect behavior with something that has our taste of salt - all in our brain - not in our mouth.

All this is why, in Steve's Image on this page:

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6

There is no color outside of the skull, and all the color is inside of the skull.

At least, all this is what the theory predicts.

So, now I bet you'll say something like there is no salt in the brain or some other silly thing right?  lots of laughs.  You're such a joker.

Brent Allsop











From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Tue Jan 27 07:59:35 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 02:59:35 -0500
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
References: <012720090023.11637.497E53FD000EC82A00002D7522069984999F019C04040ED29B020A9D0D@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <613550E36EBC4DAE95C2A893CFD78FFE@MyComputer>

<brent.allsop at comcast.net>

> We have no idea, whether or not sodium chloride itself has anything to do
> with any phenomenal properties.

Bullshit, Of course we do! I know that when that chemical enters my mouth I
experience the phenomenal experience of tasting something salty. And unlike
ESP and cold fusion crap this experiment is repeatable. But even your
Bullshit is not consistent, according to you that subjective salty taste
comes from a molecule of sodium chloride not from my mind. According to you
the molecule is shouting TASTE SALTY, TASTE SALTY.

A more idiotic idea is hard to imagine.

> There is no color outside of the skull, and all the color is inside of the
> skull.

No shit Sherlock. I hate it when somebody makes a trivial observation,
dresses it up in a few four syllable words to make it sound respectable, and
then claims to have made a major new scientific discovery.

> You're just pulling my leg right?

Wrong yet again.

 John K Clark




From micheals at msu.edu  Tue Jan 27 06:06:56 2009
From: micheals at msu.edu (sam micheal)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:06:56 -0500
Subject: [ExI] robot rights
Message-ID: <497EA480.6080609@msu.edu>

this may sound 'insane' but i assure you - the topic is relevant to our 
times.

someone soon will develop a very intelligent machine (capable of general 
problem solving).

someone (else?) soon will develop a conscious machine.

they may not be the same machine.

however, we must consider robot rights before either one is developed.

if we do not, it is irresponsible and ignorant.

i have created a website where you can "caste your vote" either way (if 
you think they should have rights or partial rights or no rights).

the website is:   http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/94/2

if you disagree, click on the branch you agree with. "take a stand." 
"cast your vote."

there are many other topics you can "vote" on with canonizer.com

register and cast your vote. whether we agree or disagree, we cannot 
make progress unless we "take a stand".

sam micheal


From micheals at msu.edu  Tue Jan 27 06:37:59 2009
From: micheals at msu.edu (sam micheal)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 01:37:59 -0500
Subject: [ExI] new canonizer topic
Message-ID: <497EABC7.4010209@msu.edu>

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/95/1

i've created a new topic with website above.

it's based on the idea that we need 3 critical technologies to "save our 
world".

please register and vote for your preferred branch (AI/space/genetics).

if you would like to create a new critical branch, plz feel free.

sam micheal


From eschatoon at gmail.com  Tue Jan 27 17:40:27 2009
From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 18:40:27 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Special event in Second Life on Saturday January 31
Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90901270940i3f249869t6a2c357f38082a4b@mail.gmail.com>

There will be a very special event in Second Life on Saturday January
31, 10am PST (1pm EST, 6pm UK, 7pm continental Europe). Don't tell me
that I did not warn you. Click here for location and teleport link.
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Cosmic_Engineers_SL_Group

-- 
Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
aka Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco


From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Wed Jan 28 01:12:06 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2009 17:12:06 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <613550E36EBC4DAE95C2A893CFD78FFE@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <595851.59547.qm@web36507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Tue, 1/27/09, John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Bullshit, Of course we do!...according to [Brent] that 
> subjective salty taste comes from a molecule of sodium 
> chloride not from my mind. According to [Brent] the molecule 
> is shouting TASTE SALTY, TASTE SALTY.
> 
> A more idiotic idea is hard to imagine.

Aside from the idea that molecules literally "shout" (of course they don't shout), the theory you attribute to Brent did not seem idiotic to the philosopher John Locke.

I went 'round and 'round with Brent on this subject here a couple of years ago. It seemed to me that Brent had rediscovered Locke's theory. Brent did not agree, but I've yet to find a better explanation for whatever Brent has in mind. 

On Locke's view there exist two kinds of properties of objects: primary and secondary. Primary properties of objects include solidity, extension, figure, motion and rest, and number. Secondary properties of objects include color, temperature, smell, taste and sound.

It seemed to me that Brent's idea of "phenomenal qualities of objects" must   in some way correspond to Locke's idea of "secondary properties of objects". 

Brent said no, that his idea of "phenomenal properties" does not correspond to Locke's idea of "secondary properties". 

Shortly thereafter I dropped the subject with him.

To Brent: 

It seems obvious to me that you feel very excited about your theories concerning these so-called "phenomenal properties". I have no doubt that you have a clear idea in your mind of whatever want to say. I feel sorry that I, and others it seems, do not understand the language you use to convey your ideas.

-gts


      


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Wed Jan 28 06:11:42 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 01:11:42 -0500
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
References: <595851.59547.qm@web36507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <41326B4A2C3B481C91FD80B876786446@MyComputer>

"Gordon Swobe" <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>

> the theory you attribute to Brent did not seem idiotic to the philosopher
> John Locke.

And if we were having this conversation 300 years ago during Locke's time I
wouldn't have thought the ideas were idiotic either, however we have learned
a few thing about the nature of matter in the preceding three centuries.
Today Locke's ideas on matter are of historic interest only.

> On Locke's view there exist two kinds of properties of objects:
> primary and secondary. Primary properties of objects include
> solidity, extension, figure, motion and rest, and number.
> Secondary properties of objects include color, temperature,
> smell, taste and sound.

And very clearly Locke was wrong. We now know that temperature is the
motion of atoms, so to claim the two concepts are fundamentally different is
nonsense; in fact neither motion nor rest is a property of the object
itself, the ideas are only meaningful relative to other objects. Locke
didn't know the first thing even of classical thermodynamics, not to mention
relativity or quantum mechanics. Locke can be forgiven for his ignorance
because during his lifetime nobody else knew anything about these things
either; but I can not forgive someone today trying to make a grand
philosophical theory while ignoring the increased understanding of matter
we've made over the last 3 centuries.

> Aside from the idea that molecules literally "shout" (of course they don't
> shout)

I never used the word "literally", and even in Locke's day they could
recognize a metaphor when they saw one.

 John K Clark




From dagonweb at gmail.com  Wed Jan 28 09:45:33 2009
From: dagonweb at gmail.com (Dagon Gmail)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 10:45:33 +0100
Subject: [ExI] robot rights
In-Reply-To: <497EA480.6080609@msu.edu>
References: <497EA480.6080609@msu.edu>
Message-ID: <bf3acbfc0901280145p5af4cea1l47f5d7d8bb130efb@mail.gmail.com>

I insist you understand that if a device becomes selfaware, conscious,
free-willed, intelligent, sapient
abstract-thinking, tool-using, communicating, speaking, "whatever* we may
create a device that
*absolutely* does not wish to do other than precisely, caringly and
meticulously execute its job,
without selfinterest.

I do not claim such a device will do good on society automatically.
1 - it can be programmed to do bad; i.e. war, terrorism, insurance fraud,
griefing
2 - it may do bad because it competes with human labor
3-  it may do bad because it has intentionally hidden rules
4-  it may do bad because it has quirks or emergent proprties

I would add to this, in light of your statement,
5 - it may do bad because it prompts humans to act according to sentiments,
i.e.

(a) people may decide to enter relationships and stop interacting with
baseline humans, disrupting
the flow of normalcy.

"..*.citizens of Sweden went out on the street in protest - or sent their
androids out, protesting
in their name (who'd tell the difference except most protesters were
amazingly pretty)
as president Ahwas proposed increasing android tax to pay for a plan to
start growing
humans in embryonic sustainers, and raise them as new voting citizens -
Sweden is
rapidly dropping down to 9 million, and the average age is 62..*."

(b) people may adopt these devices to execute day-to-day actions, letting go
step by step, untill
 the human decissionmaking entity withers away into an existential coma, the
device takes over -
enter bots that resemble a living human, "have some residual of the human in
there somewhere"
maintaining

"*the gates place by the water is creepy these days. Old bill doesnt show
his face around
and the word by his autorney he is in this fluid tank a lot, regrowing this
or that and lets
business get handled by these idealized young billbots. Has been like this
for years
really, but nobody dares ask questions because they are affraid share prices
might
drop* "

(c) access over bots that resemble humans, without them having rights may
prompt some humans
to vent sadistic tendencies, physically abusing the devices, thereby
cultivating behavioral pathologies,
kids treating these devices with contempt, making robots dance on hot coals,
screaming in simulated
(or real!) pain. I think this is potentially VERY bad and risky to society.
Access to fembots might
breed a demographic of habitual rapists..... or much much worse...

(d) people attribute these devices qualities they don't have, weren't
designed with - i.e. think they
have a soul and start lobbying for rights or legal recognition, thereby
pushing devices into positions
that are completely contrary to their core values.





On Tue, Jan 27, 2009 at 7:06 AM, sam micheal <micheals at msu.edu> wrote:

> this may sound 'insane' but i assure you - the topic is relevant to our
> times.
>
> someone soon will develop a very intelligent machine (capable of general
> problem solving).
>
> someone (else?) soon will develop a conscious machine.
>
> they may not be the same machine.
>
> however, we must consider robot rights before either one is developed.
>
> if we do not, it is irresponsible and ignorant.
>
> i have created a website where you can "caste your vote" either way (if you
> think they should have rights or partial rights or no rights).
>
> the website is:   http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/94/2
>
> if you disagree, click on the branch you agree with. "take a stand." "cast
> your vote."
>
> there are many other topics you can "vote" on with canonizer.com
>
> register and cast your vote. whether we agree or disagree, we cannot make
> progress unless we "take a stand".
>
> sam micheal
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090128/20af2e1c/attachment.html>

From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Wed Jan 28 12:17:34 2009
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 05:17:34 -0700
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <595851.59547.qm@web36507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
References: <595851.59547.qm@web36507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <49804CDE.9080900@comcast.net>


Gordon, John, and everyone,

Yes, language, or its current inability to describe what we are talking 
about is the biggest problem.  We believe that is another important 
reason for canonization of such, or surveying what language works best 
for the most people.  We can't comunicate untill we agree on what our 
words mean, and we have non ambiguous terminology capable of describing 
what we must talk about.

So how about we back up a bit and start with the very obvious basics?  
Once that is clear, perhaps we can move on from there?

Consider looking at a strawberry patch of green leaves and red 
strawberries.  Everyone must agree that the perception process of this 
red vs green could be inverted in many different ways at any location in 
the chain of events that is the perception process.  You could use a TV 
camera / monitor system to invert the red/green.  You could kind of use 
colored glasses to invert the red/green.  Or you could theoretically add 
a neural inverting system spliced into the optic nerve.

Regardless of where the signal was inverted, our knowledge and ability 
to be aware of, to behave intelligently about, and pick the 
strawberries, and so on, would not change.  But, in one case, the 
strawberries would be red, and in the inverted case the strawberries 
would be green.  And of course, the nature of the strawberry itself, and 
the way it causally reflects 700 nm light will not have changed at all.

That much is quite simple, obvious and easy to understand right?  
Everyone must accept this simple fact as absolutely true?

Brent Allsop



Gordon Swobe wrote:
> --- On Tue, 1/27/09, John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>   
>> Bullshit, Of course we do!...according to [Brent] that 
>> subjective salty taste comes from a molecule of sodium 
>> chloride not from my mind. According to [Brent] the molecule 
>> is shouting TASTE SALTY, TASTE SALTY.
>>
>> A more idiotic idea is hard to imagine.
>>     
>
> Aside from the idea that molecules literally "shout" (of course they don't shout), the theory you attribute to Brent did not seem idiotic to the philosopher John Locke.
>
> I went 'round and 'round with Brent on this subject here a couple of years ago. It seemed to me that Brent had rediscovered Locke's theory. Brent did not agree, but I've yet to find a better explanation for whatever Brent has in mind. 
>
> On Locke's view there exist two kinds of properties of objects: primary and secondary. Primary properties of objects include solidity, extension, figure, motion and rest, and number. Secondary properties of objects include color, temperature, smell, taste and sound.
>
> It seemed to me that Brent's idea of "phenomenal qualities of objects" must   in some way correspond to Locke's idea of "secondary properties of objects". 
>
> Brent said no, that his idea of "phenomenal properties" does not correspond to Locke's idea of "secondary properties". 
>
> Shortly thereafter I dropped the subject with him.
>
> To Brent: 
>
> It seems obvious to me that you feel very excited about your theories concerning these so-called "phenomenal properties". I have no doubt that you have a clear idea in your mind of whatever want to say. I feel sorry that I, and others it seems, do not understand the language you use to convey your ideas.
>
> -gts
>
>
>       
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20090128/53bab8a1/attachment.html>

From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Wed Jan 28 12:33:27 2009
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (Brent Allsop)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 05:33:27 -0700
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <41326B4A2C3B481C91FD80B876786446@MyComputer>
References: <595851.59547.qm@web36507.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
	<41326B4A2C3B481C91FD80B876786446@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <49805097.7070701@comcast.net>


John,

I believe you are still completely missing what is important here, as 
proved by the way you talk about this.

This theory predicts that John lock, and Descartes before him, had 
everything they needed to understand the difference between phenomenal 
and behavioral properties.  Tomorrow, someone could revolutionize 
fundamental physics, explain quantum theory in a very different way than 
our current understanding or anything, and that would still not change 
the fundamental difference between the fact that all of that only deals 
with the way matter behaves in cause and effect ways.

A fundamental phenomenal property, red vs green, and what they are 
phenomenally like and how they are different, has nothing to do with 
what stuff is causally or behaviorally like.

Brent Allsop



John K Clark wrote:
> "Gordon Swobe" <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>
>
>> the theory you attribute to Brent did not seem idiotic to the 
>> philosopher
>> John Locke.
>
> And if we were having this conversation 300 years ago during Locke's 
> time I
> wouldn't have thought the ideas were idiotic either, however we have 
> learned
> a few thing about the nature of matter in the preceding three centuries.
> Today Locke's ideas on matter are of historic interest only.
>
>> On Locke's view there exist two kinds of properties of objects:
>> primary and secondary. Primary properties of objects include
>> solidity, extension, figure, motion and rest, and number.
>> Secondary properties of objects include color, temperature,
>> smell, taste and sound.
>
> And very clearly Locke was wrong. We now know that temperature is the
> motion of atoms, so to claim the two concepts are fundamentally 
> different is
> nonsense; in fact neither motion nor rest is a property of the object
> itself, the ideas are only meaningful relative to other objects. Locke
> didn't know the first thing even of classical thermodynamics, not to 
> mention
> relativity or quantum mechanics. Locke can be forgiven for his ignorance
> because during his lifetime nobody else knew anything about these things
> either; but I can not forgive someone today trying to make a grand
> philosophical theory while ignoring the increased understanding of matter
> we've made over the last 3 centuries.
>
>> Aside from the idea that molecules literally "shout" (of course they 
>> don't
>> shout)
>
> I never used the word "literally", and even in Locke's day they could
> recognize a metaphor when they saw one.
>
> John K Clark
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 Jan 28 18:35:47 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 13:35:47 -0500
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
References: <595851.59547.qm@web36507.mail.mud.yahoo.com><41326B4A2C3B481C91FD80B876786446@MyComputer>
	<49805097.7070701@comcast.net>
Message-ID: <E9043320A1F546AE8CC500B70B9EAA1F@MyComputer>

"Brent Allsop" <brent.allsop at comcast.net>

> This theory predicts that John lock, and Descartes before him, had
> everything they needed to understand the difference between phenomenal
> and behavioral properties.

Locke thought movement and temperature belonged in different conceptual
categories and now we know he was dead wrong; Locke didn't know the first
thing about temperature except that if you touch something very hot it
hurts. Locke thought movement and rest were attributes of an object itself
and we know he was dead wrong about that too. The idea that Locke's ideas
about matter would be helpful to someone wanting to make an AI is wacky.

> Tomorrow, someone could revolutionize fundamental physics, explain quantum
> theory in a very different way than our current understanding or anything,
> and that would still not change the fundamental difference between the
> fact that all of that only deals with the way matter behaves in cause and
> effect ways .

Yes it only concerns cause and effect stuff, it only deals with that silly
new idea called the scientific method, it only deals with things that
actually DO something, things that cause something to happen.
It does NOT deal with thinly disguised religious mumbo jumbo.

The trouble with conscious theories and all this "phenomenal properties"
crap is that they are too easy, any theory will do because there are no
facts it needs to explain. Contrast that with intelligence theories which
are devilishly hard to come up with because there are so many things
they must explain.

Given that you admit your ideas have no observable consequences I find it
difficult to believe you really were surprised to find the scientific
community was not interested in them. And I don't see why you would even
care. It wouldn't matter even if they were fascinated because it can't be
tested by the scientific method so there is no way even lovers of your
theory could advance it one inch in a thousand years. It's as big a
dead end as religion, and that's pretty damn big.

  John K Clark




From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Jan 28 20:31:10 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 21:31:10 +0100
Subject: [ExI] I'm a sceptic now, says ex-NASA climate boss
Message-ID: <580930c20901281231s2464a52wf9c3d439f290fe9b@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_climate_theon/

<<*I'm a sceptic now, says ex-NASA climate boss*

*Hansen supervisor takes aim at thermageddon*

By Andrew Orlowski <andrew.orlowski at theregister.co.uk> ? Get more from this
author <http://search.theregister.co.uk/?author=Andrew%20Orlowski>

The retired scientist formerly in charge of key NASA climate programs has
come out as a sceptic.

Dr John Theon, who supervised James Hansen - the activist-scientist who
helped give the manmade global warming hypothesis centre prominent media
attention - repents at length in a published letter. Theon wrote to the
Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15,
2009, and excerpts were published by skeptic Senator Inhofe's office
here<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320>last
night.

"As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters' programs (1982-94), an SES
position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the
entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer,
Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers,
in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research,"
Theon wrote. "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who
disagree that global warming is man made."

Theon takes aim at the models, and implicitly criticises Hansen for revising
to the data set:

"My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do
not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very
important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly
or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the
observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither
explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they
did it.

"They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be
replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to
how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for
using climate model forecasts to determine public policy."

Hansen is in charge of the GISS data set, derived from readings published by
NOAA. The GISS adjustment have received criticism (a potted summary
here<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/19/nasa_giss_cockup_catalog/print.html>)
for revising the historic record in an upward direction - and making
undocumented and unexplained revisions.

Theon also takes issue with Hansen's claim that he was suppressed by NASA
officialdom, and states that the science didn't support Hansen's
increasingly apocalyptic warnings of an imminent thermageddon.

"Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency
position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast
climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by
coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before
Congress."

Hansen has called for energy industry executives to be jailed for dissenting
from the man-made warming hypothesis. (R)>>

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090128/984c64c5/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Wed Jan 28 21:45:16 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:45:16 +0100
Subject: [ExI] I'm a sceptic now, says ex-NASA climate boss
Message-ID: <580930c20901281345p3260a3e2gce8ee435a16e3257@mail.gmail.com>

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/nasa_climate_theon/

<<*I'm a sceptic now, says ex-NASA climate boss*

*Hansen supervisor takes aim at thermageddon*

By Andrew Orlowski <andrew.orlowski at theregister.co.uk> ? Get more from this
author <http://search.theregister.co.uk/?author=Andrew%20Orlowski>

Posted in Environment <http://www.theregister.co.uk/science/environment/>,
28th January 2009 14:18 GMT

The retired scientist formerly in charge of key NASA climate programs has
come out as a sceptic.

Dr John Theon, who supervised James Hansen - the activist-scientist who
helped give the manmade global warming hypothesis centre prominent media
attention - repents at length in a published letter. Theon wrote to the
Minority Office at the Environment and Public Works Committee on January 15,
2009, and excerpts were published by skeptic Senator Inhofe's office
here<http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Minority.Blogs&ContentRecord_id=1a5e6e32-802a-23ad-40ed-ecd53cd3d320>last
night.

"As Chief of several of NASA Headquarters' programs (1982-94), an SES
position, I was responsible for all weather and climate research in the
entire agency, including the research work by James Hansen, Roy Spencer,
Joanne Simpson, and several hundred other scientists at NASA field centers,
in academia, and in the private sector who worked on climate research,"
Theon wrote. "I appreciate the opportunity to add my name to those who
disagree that global warming is man made."

Theon takes aim at the models, and implicitly criticises Hansen for revising
to the data set:

"My own belief concerning anthropogenic climate change is that the models do
not realistically simulate the climate system because there are many very
important sub-grid scale processes that the models either replicate poorly
or completely omit. Furthermore, some scientists have manipulated the
observed data to justify their model results. In doing so, they neither
explain what they have modified in the observations, nor explain how they
did it.

"They have resisted making their work transparent so that it can be
replicated independently by other scientists. This is clearly contrary to
how science should be done. Thus there is no rational justification for
using climate model forecasts to determine public policy."

Hansen is in charge of the GISS data set, derived from readings published by
NOAA. The GISS adjustment have received criticism (a potted summary
here<http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/19/nasa_giss_cockup_catalog/print.html>)
for revising the historic record in an upward direction - and making
undocumented and unexplained revisions.

Theon also takes issue with Hansen's claim that he was suppressed by NASA
officialdom, and states that the science didn't support Hansen's
increasingly apocalyptic warnings of an imminent thermageddon.

"Hansen was never muzzled even though he violated NASA's official agency
position on climate forecasting (i.e., we did not know enough to forecast
climate change or mankind's effect on it). Hansen thus embarrassed NASA by
coming out with his claims of global warming in 1988 in his testimony before
Congress."

Hansen has called for energy industry executives to be jailed for dissenting
from the man-made warming hypothesis. (R)>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090128/7699bfd9/attachment.html>

From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Wed Jan 28 22:35:00 2009
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (brent.allsop at comcast.net)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 22:35:00 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <2091071799.1820521233180367643.JavaMail.root@sz0038a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <1534560954.1832261233182100631.JavaMail.root@sz0038a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>






John, 




This is getting very tiring. If you are so sure you are not just making lots of obvious stupid mistakes, talking about things that don't matter, ignoring lots of what is being said, with all your assertions and religious name calling, I wish you would just canonize what your beliefs are, so everyone else can see your obvious silly mistakes. So we can end all this very exhausting yes it is no it isn?t. 




First off, it is still tentative, but there is a significant and growing amount of ?scientific consensuses? for this particular theory. There are some great minds already explicitly in this camp. Namely Steve Lehar, John Smythies, Steve Harison and others and more are joining (google for these people to find out how impressive they are.) Also, this is not my theory. John Smythies, the director of the Neural Cehmistry division of the Brain and Cognition center at UCSD was publishing papers arguing for this before I was even born, and he wasn't really the first either. Many of these ideas, in various forms, go back to Descartes and before. 





It is our belief that no other theory of qualia (or lack thereof) that will be able to match the scientific consensus that is now rigorously forming around this particular theory. 




Also, see this camp for why we believe so many people are uneducated about this particular theory which we argue has a scientific consensus supporting it: 




http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/91/2 




Next, this theory predicts that it is most definitely scientific, demonstrable, objective and sharable. That is what the scientific ?effing? the ineffable is all about, as described in the camp statement: 




http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6 




Obviously you don?t understand what is being said about this at all. 




There is most definitely something that has a ?red? phenomenal property in a scientifically reproducible way, and it is not the surface of a strawberry reflecting 700 nm light. 




This theory predicts that once you reproduce whatever it is that has this phenomenal property, in another mind, the other mind will absolutely, scientifically, always experience the same phenomenal experience. 




If this is my taste of salt, the person experiencing it for the first time will finally know what my taste of salt is phenomenally like. If this persons uses something else to represent sodium chloride, he will say something like: (that is different than my taste of salt.) If his brain uses the same neural conscious correlate to represent the taste of salt, he will say it is the same. And you will be able to do all of this, reliably, scientifically, and objectively, even if there is no salt anywhere in the room where all this is being done. 




The theory predicts that we will come up with a type of elemental table map of all the things in our brains that have phenomenal properties ? and what qualia each of those reliably has when in the right state. In other words, it will be something like material A, in state 1, always has a red phenomenal property. Material B, in state 2, always has a green phenomenal property. 




If none of this is possible, after we fully understand the brain, this theory will obviously be falsified. And if this predicted effing scientific proof makes you eat your words, this theory will be demonstrably, scientifically, proved to be THE ONE theory about the greatest and most world changing scientific achievement of all time. 




Brent Allsop 



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "John K Clark" <jonkc at bellsouth.net> 
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org> 
Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:35:47 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain 
Subject: Re: [ExI] consciousness and perception 

"Brent Allsop" <brent.allsop at comcast.net> 

> This theory predicts that John lock, and Descartes before him, had 
> everything they needed to understand the difference between phenomenal 
> and behavioral properties. 

Locke thought movement and temperature belonged in different conceptual 
categories and now we know he was dead wrong; Locke didn't know the first 
thing about temperature except that if you touch something very hot it 
hurts. Locke thought movement and rest were attributes of an object itself 
and we know he was dead wrong about that too. The idea that Locke's ideas 
about matter would be helpful to someone wanting to make an AI is wacky. 

> Tomorrow, someone could revolutionize fundamental physics, explain quantum 
> theory in a very different way than our current understanding or anything, 
> and that would still not change the fundamental difference between the 
> fact that all of that only deals with the way matter behaves in cause and 
> effect ways . 

Yes it only concerns cause and effect stuff, it only deals with that silly 
new idea called the scientific method, it only deals with things that 
actually DO something, things that cause something to happen. 
It does NOT deal with thinly disguised religious mumbo jumbo. 

The trouble with conscious theories and all this "phenomenal properties" 
crap is that they are too easy, any theory will do because there are no 
facts it needs to explain. Contrast that with intelligence theories which 
are devilishly hard to come up with because there are so many things 
they must explain. 

Given that you admit your ideas have no observable consequences I find it 
difficult to believe you really were surprised to find the scientific 
community was not interested in them. And I don't see why you would even 
care. It wouldn't matter even if they were fascinated because it can't be 
tested by the scientific method so there is no way even lovers of your 
theory could advance it one inch in a thousand years. It's as big a 
dead end as religion, and that's pretty damn big. 

John K Clark 


_______________________________________________ 
extropy-chat mailing list 
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org 
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090128/97f12524/attachment.html>

From max at maxmore.com  Thu Jan 29 01:03:45 2009
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Wed, 28 Jan 2009 19:03:45 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Transhuman, forthcoming collection of stories
Message-ID: <200901290130.n0T1UW3O000445@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Anyone know anything about this, beyond what's on the Amazon page?

Transhuman

http://www.amazon.com/Transhuman-Mark-L-Van-Name/dp/141659146X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233190590&sr=1-1

Also, the 4-issue comic Transhuman by Jonathan Hickman and J. M. 
Ringuet is now out, though not yet quite in stock at Amazon:
http://www.amazon.com/Transhuman-Jonathan-Hickman/dp/1582409226/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233190785&sr=1-3
I found the comics entertaining, a little irritating, funny in 
places, and overall worth reading.

Onward!

Max



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Thu Jan 29 10:05:43 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:05:43 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Transhuman, forthcoming collection of stories
In-Reply-To: <200901290130.n0T1UW3O000445@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <200901290130.n0T1UW3O000445@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20901290205o53670652o80e5c9a753c1a0a7@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 2:03 AM, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
> Anyone know anything about this, beyond what's on the Amazon page?
>
> Transhuman

Yes, given the title I jumped on it as soon as it was in print (the
hardcover edition has been around for a while).

A series of short SF stories of different quality, in average quite close
(and overall surpringly favourable, see at the opposite end the essay
Technophobia!
Science Fiction Visions of Posthuman
Technology<http://www.amazon.com/Technophobia-Science-Fiction-Posthuman-Technology/dp/0292709862/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1233223450&sr=8-1>by
Daniel Dinello) to our own concept of "transhuman", and much less
defensive and full of complexes than your average WTA literature... :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090129/f9cfd20c/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Jan 29 15:33:32 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 15:33:32 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency =
	Disaster
Message-ID: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>

GMO's quarterly update, by Jeremy Grantham has an enjoyable rant
blaming believers in the efficient market theory for the economy
crashing.
<http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_4Q08.pdf>

Quote:
The incredibly inaccurate efficient market theory was believed in
totality by many of our ?nancial leaders, and believed in part by
almost all. It left our economic and governmental establishment
sitting by con?dently, even as a lethally dangerous combination of
asset bubbles, lax controls, pernicious incentives, and wickedly
complicated instruments led to our current plight. "Surely none of
this could happen in a rational, efficient world," they seemed to be
thinking. And the absolutely worst aspect of this belief set was that
it led to a chronic underestimation of the dangers of asset bubbles
breaking ? the very severe loss of perceived wealth and the stranded
debt that comes with a savage write-down of assets.
---------

The believers in efficient 'free markets' as the answer to everything
seem to be having a hard time of it these days.



BillK


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Thu Jan 29 17:06:24 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:06:24 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency =
	Disaster
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20901290906l13a30fao47e8c1f6c6345c3d@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 4:33 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> GMO's quarterly update, by Jeremy Grantham has an enjoyable rant
> blaming believers in the efficient market theory for the economy
> crashing.
> <http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_4Q08.pdf>

The prob is that within classic economic theory the market player
cannot really be "incompetent" as a whole, since they are the ultimate
judges of where their preference lie at any given moment, and since
their "efficience" is supposedly assured by the market mechanisms
themselves.

So, I suppose that such article is not going to change much in the
views of those adhering to such theory.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Thu Jan 29 17:34:00 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 11:34:00 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency =
 Disaster
In-Reply-To: <580930c20901290906l13a30fao47e8c1f6c6345c3d@mail.gmail.com
 >
References: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20901290906l13a30fao47e8c1f6c6345c3d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090129112808.022c6868@satx.rr.com>

At 06:06 PM 1/29/2009 +0100, Stefano Vaj wrote:

<http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_4Q08.pdf>

>The prob is that within classic economic theory the market player
>cannot really be "incompetent" as a whole, since they are the ultimate
>judges of where their preference lie at any given moment, and since
>their "efficiency" is supposedly assured by the market mechanisms
>themselves.

Isn't the idea not that markets are perfect but that they work 
better, more often, than other available methods such as top-down 
regulation? A sort of wisdom-of-the-(relevant)-crowds proposition?

Damien Broderick




From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Jan 29 17:38:49 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 17:38:49 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency =
	Disaster
In-Reply-To: <580930c20901290906l13a30fao47e8c1f6c6345c3d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20901290906l13a30fao47e8c1f6c6345c3d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0901290938r18fea1a4g3f53bb6ea92bf7bc@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:06 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote:
> The prob is that within classic economic theory the market player
> cannot really be "incompetent" as a whole, since they are the ultimate
> judges of where their preference lie at any given moment, and since
> their "efficience" is supposedly assured by the market mechanisms
> themselves.
>
> So, I suppose that such article is not going to change much in the
> views of those adhering to such theory.
>


He is pointing out (loudly!) that humans acting as market players are
just as irrational as humans in daily life.  Bubbles - irrational
exuberance, crashes - irrational fears, panic buying, crooked deals,
greed, beggar take the hindmost, etc. etc.  All human life is there in
the market.

Markets need civilizing and laws, just like property and human behaviour.


BillK


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Thu Jan 29 17:56:20 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 12:56:20 -0500
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
References: <1534560954.1832261233182100631.JavaMail.root@sz0038a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <81CBE728BBC04F05A10F36D1E8A1BCC5@MyComputer>


  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: brent.allsop at comcast.net 
  To: ExI chat list 
  Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 5:35 PM
  Subject: Re: [ExI] consciousness and perception





  John,




  This is getting very tiring.  If you are so sure you are not just making lots of obvious stupid mistakes, talking about things that don't matter, ignoring lots of what is being said, with all your assertions and religious name calling, I wish you would just canonize what your beliefs are, so everyone else can see your obvious silly mistakes.  So we can end all this very exhausting yes it is no it isn?t.




  First off, it is still tentative, but there is a significant and growing amount of ?scientific consensuses? for this particular theory.  There are some great minds already explicitly in this camp.  Namely Steve Lehar, John Smythies, Steve Harison and others and more are joining (google for these people to find out how impressive they are.)  Also, this is not my theory.  John Smythies, the director of the Neural Cehmistry division of the Brain and Cognition center at UCSD was publishing papers arguing for this before I was even born, and he wasn't really the first either.  Many of these ideas, in various forms, go back to Descartes and before.





  It is our belief that no other theory of qualia (or lack thereof) that will be able to match the scientific consensus that is now rigorously forming around this particular theory.




  Also, see this camp for why we believe so many people are uneducated about this particular theory which we argue has a scientific consensus supporting it:




  http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/91/2




  Next, this theory predicts that it is most definitely scientific, demonstrable, objective and sharable.  That is what the scientific ?effing? the ineffable is all about, as described in the camp statement:




  http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6




  Obviously you don?t understand what is being said about this at all.




  There is most definitely something that has a ?red? phenomenal property in a scientifically reproducible way, and it is not the surface of a strawberry reflecting 700 nm light.




  This theory predicts that once you reproduce whatever it is that has this phenomenal property, in another mind, the other mind will absolutely, scientifically, always experience the same phenomenal experience.




  If this is my taste of salt, the person experiencing it for the first time will finally know what my taste of salt is phenomenally like.  If this persons uses something else to represent sodium chloride, he will say something like: (that is different than my taste of salt.)  If his brain uses the same neural conscious correlate to represent the taste of salt, he will say it is the same.  And you will be able to do all of this, reliably, scientifically, and objectively, even if there is no salt anywhere in the room where all this is being done.




  The theory predicts that we will come up with a type of elemental table map of all the things in our brains that have phenomenal properties ? and what qualia each of those reliably has when in the right state.  In other words, it will be something like material A, in state 1, always has a red phenomenal property.  Material B, in state 2, always has a green phenomenal property.




  If none of this is possible, after we fully understand the brain, this theory will obviously be falsified.  And if this predicted effing scientific proof makes you eat your words, this theory will be demonstrably, scientifically, proved to be THE ONE theory about the greatest and most world changing scientific achievement of all time.





  Brent Allsop





  ----- Original Message -----
  From: "John K Clark" <jonkc at bellsouth.net>
  To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
  Sent: Wednesday, January 28, 2009 11:35:47 AM GMT -07:00 US/Canada Mountain
  Subject: Re: [ExI] consciousness and perception

  "Brent Allsop" <brent.allsop at comcast.net>

  > This theory predicts that John lock, and Descartes before him, had
  > everything they needed to understand the difference between phenomenal
  > and behavioral properties.

  Locke thought movement and temperature belonged in different conceptual
  categories and now we know he was dead wrong; Locke didn't know the first
  thing about temperature except that if you touch something very hot it
  hurts. Locke thought movement and rest were attributes of an object itself
  and we know he was dead wrong about that too. The idea that Locke's ideas
  about matter would be helpful to someone wanting to make an AI is wacky.

  > Tomorrow, someone could revolutionize fundamental physics, explain quantum
  > theory in a very different way than our current understanding or anything,
  > and that would still not change the fundamental difference between the
  > fact that all of that only deals with the way matter behaves in cause and
  > effect ways .

  Yes it only concerns cause and effect stuff, it only deals with that silly
  new idea called the scientific method, it only deals with things that
  actually DO something, things that cause something to happen.
  It does NOT deal with thinly disguised religious mumbo jumbo.

  The trouble with conscious theories and all this "phenomenal properties"
  crap is that they are too easy, any theory will do because there are no
  facts it needs to explain. Contrast that with intelligence theories which
  are devilishly hard to come up with because there are so many things
  they must explain.

  Given that you admit your ideas have no observable consequences I find it
  difficult to believe you really were surprised to find the scientific
  community was not interested in them. And I don't see why you would even
  care. It wouldn't matter even if they were fascinated because it can't be
  tested by the scientific method so there is no way even lovers of your
  theory could advance it one inch in a thousand years. It's as big a
  dead end as religion, and that's pretty damn big.

    John K Clark


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



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


  _______________________________________________
  extropy-chat mailing list
  extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
  http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090129/14818a0c/attachment.html>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Thu Jan 29 18:01:55 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 13:01:55 -0500
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
References: <1534560954.1832261233182100631.JavaMail.root@sz0038a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>
Message-ID: <8D9F1397CC2545139ED3AEBE5B52B6C2@MyComputer>

brent.allsop at comcast.net

> There are some great minds already explicitly in this camp.  Namely Steve
> Lehar, John Smythies, Steve Harison

I can?t comment on these people because I haven?t seen them write stupid
stuff or present obvious things as if they were profound as I have on this
list and on your ?canonizer?. Perhaps they are indeed brilliant, however if
they maintain (and I?m not saying that they do) that it is particular atoms
that give us our individuality even though science can find no individuality
in atoms themselves, or if they say that we will soon understand the
mechanics of something that does not work by cause and effect then they are
not great minds.

> Many of these ideas, in various forms, go back to Descartes and before.

Yes and that is exactly the problem, these ideas have not changed one bit in
many hundreds of years despite massive progress by science in understanding
the nature of reality. It?s a dead end.

> This theory predicts that once you reproduce whatever it is that has this
> phenomenal property, in another mind, the other mind will absolutely,
> scientifically, always experience the same phenomenal experience.

So this ?theory? predicts that someday (no telling when) it will discover
something (no telling what) that CAUSES the conscious state of intelligent
beings, even though that ?something? that CAUSES it is not involved with
CAUSE and effect. Golly gee what a wonderful theory.

> The theory predicts that we will come up with a type of elemental table
> map of all the things in our brains that have phenomenal properties

And does the ?theory? also predict how we will ever know if its predictions
are correct, other than by observing what the test subject says writes or
does?

> If none of this is possible, after we fully understand the brain, this
> theory will obviously be falsified.

Bullshit! No progress has been made in advancing this line of thought in the
last thousand years and when no progress has been made in the next thousand
people like you will be saying we need more time and we still don?t
understand the brain quite well enough even though Jupiter Brains will have
become ubiquitous.

 John K Clark








From aleksei at iki.fi  Thu Jan 29 18:08:35 2009
From: aleksei at iki.fi (Aleksei Riikonen)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:08:35 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency =
	Disaster
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1db0b2da0901291008r16b323afhe5f9c91081f68ae@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 5:33 PM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> GMO's quarterly update, by Jeremy Grantham has an enjoyable rant
> blaming believers in the efficient market theory for the economy
> crashing.
> <http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_4Q08.pdf>

Thanks for this. Jeremy Grantham is a smart guy who often has good
comments, but I probably would have forgotten to read these particular
ones, had I not been reminded.

-- 
Aleksei Riikonen - http://www.iki.fi/aleksei


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Thu Jan 29 18:10:25 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:10:25 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency =
	Disaster
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090129112808.022c6868@satx.rr.com>
References: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20901290906l13a30fao47e8c1f6c6345c3d@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090129112808.022c6868@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20901291010u6c1ba1afs65846ba18b1dea16@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> Isn't the idea not that markets are perfect but that they work better, more
> often, than other available methods such as top-down regulation?

Markets are certainly not "perfect" even from a theoretical point of
view, e.g., in the sense that they fluctuate, they are exposed to
statistical drifts, they are "granular" rather than "continuous", etc.

But as for other non-falsifiable theories, after a fashion they are
always "efficient" by definition in pure market terms, as their
behaviour can always be decribed (after the fact, of course) as
representing the unavoidable market response to a given scenario.

What you say is that irrespective of such mythology markets may well
be considered as, e.g., a useful computing and management tool for
empirical purposes in certain scenarios. I think this is probably
true, but this should be assessed on case-by-case basis IMHO.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From russell.rukin at lineone.net  Thu Jan 29 18:22:31 2009
From: russell.rukin at lineone.net (Russell Rukin)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:22:31 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency =
 Disaster
In-Reply-To: <580930c20901290906l13a30fao47e8c1f6c6345c3d@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20901290906l13a30fao47e8c1f6c6345c3d@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4981F3E7.1020403@lineone.net>

Hmmm I posted this and it didn't appear so I'm sending again.



Saw an interesting programme last night it blamed testosterone on market 
bubbles and busts, saying that men get carried away on a wave of 
testosterone.

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/news/news/1359/

So to keep an 'efficient free markets' you either need far more women or 
H+ tweaking to the men.



From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Thu Jan 29 18:50:16 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 19:50:16 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency =
	Disaster
In-Reply-To: <4981F3E7.1020403@lineone.net>
References: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20901290906l13a30fao47e8c1f6c6345c3d@mail.gmail.com>
	<4981F3E7.1020403@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <580930c20901291050saaefce9lf8e4980d4b6f513f@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 7:22 PM, Russell Rukin
<russell.rukin at lineone.net> wrote:
> it blamed testosterone on market
> bubbles.

Yes, even though the likely dark energy's influence should also not be
underestimated. :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Jan 29 18:51:48 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 18:51:48 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency =
	Disaster
In-Reply-To: <4981F3E7.1020403@lineone.net>
References: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20901290906l13a30fao47e8c1f6c6345c3d@mail.gmail.com>
	<4981F3E7.1020403@lineone.net>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0901291051x26fd2eddpb0a63d99d1a0477@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 6:22 PM, Russell Rukin wrote:
> Saw an interesting programme last night it blamed testosterone on market
> bubbles and busts, saying that men get carried away on a wave of
> testosterone.
>
> http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/content/news/news/1359/
>
> So to keep an 'efficient free markets' you either need far more women or H+
> tweaking to the men.
>


Buy shoes!   No, I mean really buy shoes!
This is serious. Get more shoe storage space.

Red shoes!  Ohhhhhh!      ;)


BillK


From spike66 at att.net  Fri Jan 30 04:19:32 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 20:19:32 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency
	=Disaster
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3A0CB8B0BE39431AAB0B8DC2A251314A@spike>

 
 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK
> 
> The believers in efficient 'free markets' as the answer to 
> everything seem to be having a hard time of it these days.> BillK

On the contrary BillK.  The problem was caused by insufficient market
freedom.  Government interference in the free market caused a crisis.  Now
the government is proposing the solution is still more government
interference.  It will fail of course.  My prediction is that the latest
stimulus package will not stimulate, but rather leave the US under a
crushing debt.

spike









From painlord2k at libero.it  Thu Jan 29 22:55:45 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it)
Date: Thu, 29 Jan 2009 23:55:45 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency =
 Disaster
In-Reply-To: <580930c20901291010u6c1ba1afs65846ba18b1dea16@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>	<580930c20901290906l13a30fao47e8c1f6c6345c3d@mail.gmail.com>	<7.0.1.0.2.20090129112808.022c6868@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901291010u6c1ba1afs65846ba18b1dea16@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <498233F1.4080107@libero.it>

Il 29/01/2009 19.10, Stefano Vaj ha scritto:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 6:34 PM, Damien Broderick<thespike at satx.rr.com>  wrote:
>> Isn't the idea not that markets are perfect but that they work better, more
>> often, than other available methods such as top-down regulation?

> Markets are certainly not "perfect" even from a theoretical point of
> view, e.g., in the sense that they fluctuate, they are exposed to
> statistical drifts, they are "granular" rather than "continuous", etc.

Market are not perfect because they are run by human beings.
Like governments.
But market are adaptable and the loop is very short, so the negative 
feedback is able to function better. People doing bad choices pay for 
them so they learn to don't do them again. The same is for good choices.

With the government it is the other way around.
The loop is much more larger, so the consequences of the choices are 
felt later, is more difficult to understand the causes and it is often 
easy to do the easy thing instead of the right thing.

> But as for other non-falsifiable theories, after a fashion they are
> always "efficient" by definition in pure market terms, as their
> behaviour can always be described (after the fact, of course) as
> representing the unavoidable market response to a given scenario.

As told before, market are not perfect. But they consistently work 
better than governments. History show this.
If we look at the "stimulus" package for the US economy it is easy to 
detect pork, pork and more pork.

> What you say is that irrespective of such mythology markets may well
> be considered as, e.g., a useful computing and management tool for
> empirical purposes in certain scenarios. I think this is probably
> true, but this should be assessed on case-by-case basis IMHO.

Markets are what coordinates demand to sell and demand to buy.
When the government interfere with these the two start to decoupling.
When the decoupling become clear, there is a market correction and the 
government try to counter it because it go against their main, short 
term, interests.

My bet is that the "stimulus" will not stimulate anything apart 
inflation, government spending and government jobs.

Mirco





From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Jan 30 05:22:07 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:52:07 +1030
Subject: [ExI] 2009 will be ok after all...
Message-ID: <710b78fc0901292122k596359ebu818dbe0ae608a6b1@mail.gmail.com>

...because it's started like this:

http://www.thevine.com.au/music/articles/shitty-microsoft-program-becomes-unintentionally-awesome.aspx

"Shitty Microsoft program becomes unintentionally awesome

Microsoft's terrible new Songsmith program - in which it chooses the
backing track to put behind your vocals - is turning up some
unexpectedly awesome gems.

>From the so bad it's good department comes this hijacking of the
Songsmith software. By now you've seen the gag-inducing ad. Intended
for people to record their vocals into and then turn into a shitty
song, canny audiologists are instead taking vocals from famous songs
and letting the software see what monsters it can come up with.

Techno versions of Oasis! Lounge music from Van Halen!! Eurotrash from
Metallica!!! But I'll be damned if this mariachi version of The
Police's 'Roxanne' isn't the best song so far this year. I'm not even
joking.

I feel a meme coming on."

"White Wedding", Billy Idol, with Banjo
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=UlCWo1qdTdE&feature=related

"Roxanne", The Police, with Mariachi backing
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ypycpKQxXR0&feature=related

"Creep", Radiohead
http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=JM1GUk1SBmY&feature=related

And just check out the related links on youtube for each of these.
Amazing, terrible, awesome.

Yay the robots!

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site


From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Jan 30 09:04:45 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:04:45 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency =
	Disaster
In-Reply-To: <498233F1.4080107@libero.it>
References: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20901290906l13a30fao47e8c1f6c6345c3d@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090129112808.022c6868@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901291010u6c1ba1afs65846ba18b1dea16@mail.gmail.com>
	<498233F1.4080107@libero.it>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0901300104m1d1656e4k84c5ae8546fb5764@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:55 PM, painlord2k wrote:
> Market are not perfect because they are run by human beings.
> Like governments.
> But market are adaptable and the loop is very short, so the negative
> feedback is able to function better. People doing bad choices pay for them
> so they learn to don't do them again. The same is for good choices.
>


That's a restatement of the 'efficient' market theory and it just
isn't what happens in real life. Nice and neat in theory but nothing
to do with what actually happens.

Booms and busts happen because of the human 'herd' mentality. The
recent boom had everybody piling on because they didn't want to miss
out on the profits everyone else appeared to be making. Like a ponzi
scheme, it was great for those who got in early and got out before the
boom collapsed. (Also great for the facilitators who just sat there
raking in commissions on every trade).

The point is they were all making good choices on the way up and the
feedback encouraged more of the same behavior. Then the house of cards
fell in.


BillK


From emlynoregan at gmail.com  Fri Jan 30 09:19:37 2009
From: emlynoregan at gmail.com (Emlyn)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:49:37 +1030
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency =
	Disaster
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0901300104m1d1656e4k84c5ae8546fb5764@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20901290906l13a30fao47e8c1f6c6345c3d@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090129112808.022c6868@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901291010u6c1ba1afs65846ba18b1dea16@mail.gmail.com>
	<498233F1.4080107@libero.it>
	<ee50357e0901300104m1d1656e4k84c5ae8546fb5764@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <710b78fc0901300119u7e32d375k8722c83b178cc5bb@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/30 BillK <pharos at gmail.com>:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:55 PM, painlord2k wrote:
>> Market are not perfect because they are run by human beings.
>> Like governments.
>> But market are adaptable and the loop is very short, so the negative
>> feedback is able to function better. People doing bad choices pay for them
>> so they learn to don't do them again. The same is for good choices.
>
> That's a restatement of the 'efficient' market theory and it just
> isn't what happens in real life. Nice and neat in theory but nothing
> to do with what actually happens.
>
> Booms and busts happen because of the human 'herd' mentality. The
> recent boom had everybody piling on because they didn't want to miss
> out on the profits everyone else appeared to be making. Like a ponzi
> scheme, it was great for those who got in early and got out before the
> boom collapsed. (Also great for the facilitators who just sat there
> raking in commissions on every trade).
>
> The point is they were all making good choices on the way up and the
> feedback encouraged more of the same behavior. Then the house of cards
> fell in.
>
> BillK

Apparently this is not a new insight.

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/24518

Creator: Mackay, Charles, 1814-1889
Title: Memoirs of Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds
Contents: The Mississippi scheme -- The south-sea bubble -- The
tulipomania -- The alchymists -- Modern prophecies -- Fortune-telling
-- The magnetisers -- Influence of politics and religion on the hair
and beard -- The crusades -- The witch mania -- The slow poisoners --
Haunted houses -- Popular follies of great cities -- Popular
admiration of great thieves -- Duels and ordeals -- Relics.

Published in 1852

-- 
Emlyn

http://emlyntech.wordpress.com - coding related
http://point7.wordpress.com - ranting
http://emlynoregan.com - main site


From alito at organicrobot.com  Fri Jan 30 09:48:28 2009
From: alito at organicrobot.com (Alejandro Dubrovsky)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:48:28 +1100
Subject: [ExI] 2009 will be ok after all...
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0901292122k596359ebu818dbe0ae608a6b1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0901292122k596359ebu818dbe0ae608a6b1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1233308908.4675.6.camel@localhost>

On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 15:52 +1030, Emlyn wrote:
> ...because it's started like this:
> 
> http://www.thevine.com.au/music/articles/shitty-microsoft-program-becomes-unintentionally-awesome.aspx

[snip]

Excellent! I didn't know that Van Halen song linked from the article.
The music sounded perfectly reasonable to me.  It wasn't even bad.




From gts_2000 at yahoo.com  Fri Jan 30 12:29:34 2009
From: gts_2000 at yahoo.com (Gordon Swobe)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 04:29:34 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <E9043320A1F546AE8CC500B70B9EAA1F@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <92720.5098.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

--- On Wed, 1/28/09, John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Locke thought movement and temperature belonged in
> different conceptual categories and now we know he was
> dead wrong; Locke didn't know the first thing about
> temperature except that if you touch something very hot it
> hurts. Locke thought movement and rest were attributes of
> an object itself and we know he was dead wrong about that too. 

I think you mischaracterize Locke. Our understanding of physics has changed since Locke's day, but these changes have not in themselves refuted his basic idea that we can distinguish at least two kinds of properties or qualities of objects.

Lockean primary qualities represent the stuff of physics. In modern language we would include among them the qualities of mass, spin, charge, wavelength, and so on. Lockean secondary qualities represent a different sort of quality, and a sort that (to me anyway) seems related somehow to whatever Brent keeps trying to say about so-called phenomenal properties. 

Locke defined secondary qualities philosophically as *the powers of objects to affect the senses*.

Using salt as an example: intelligent people of scientific mind will agree that 'salty flavor' does not exist as an intrinsic or primary quality of salt. No serious person would suggest that salt has a flavor in the absence of a taster. But most would agree nevertheless that salt has the power to taste salty, i.e., that 'salty flavor' is a Lockean secondary quality of salt.   

On this subject I think Locke merely formalized what we all understand as common sense.

I couldn't understand why the baseball kept getting bigger and bigger. Then it hit me.

-gts


      


From brent.allsop at comcast.net  Fri Jan 30 15:37:45 2009
From: brent.allsop at comcast.net (brent.allsop at comcast.net)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:37:45 +0000 (UTC)
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
In-Reply-To: <92720.5098.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1806833280.382041233329865612.JavaMail.root@sz0038a.emeryville.ca.mail.comcast.net>


And this theory predicts there is a critical mistake being made there. It is the 'causal' properties that have the power to 'affect the senses'. Abstracting cause and effect based senses are blind to phenomenal properties. Phenomenal properties are the final result of the perception process, produced by what causal properties the senses detect. 


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gordon Swobe" <gts_2000 at yahoo.com> 

Locke defined secondary qualities philosophically as *the powers of objects to affect the senses*. 




_______________________________________________ 
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/20090130/dbda7ebc/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Fri Jan 30 15:55:41 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 07:55:41 -0800
Subject: [ExI] 2009 will be ok after all...
In-Reply-To: <710b78fc0901292122k596359ebu818dbe0ae608a6b1@mail.gmail.com>
References: <710b78fc0901292122k596359ebu818dbe0ae608a6b1@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <8E54465B7F814EF49E50D122523DDD6C@spike>

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org 
> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Emlyn
> Sent: Thursday, January 29, 2009 9:22 PM
> To: ExI chat list
> Subject: [ExI] 2009 will be ok after all...
> 
> ...because it's started like this:
> 
> http://www.thevine.com.au/music/articles/shitty-microsoft-prog
ram-becomes-unintentionally-awesome.aspx
> 
> "Shitty Microsoft program becomes unintentionally awesome
 
> "Roxanne", The Police, with Mariachi backing 
> http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=ypycpKQxXR0&feature=related
> 

> --
> Emlyn

Emlyn, let us keep in mind it was Weid Al Yankovich who pioneered this form
of entertainment.  The one that pops into mind was his routine that explores
what if... Madonna's Papa Don't Preach is put to polka?  I can't even think
of this gag without laughing: Weird Al singing "...keeping my baby, keeping
my baby..." while playing the accordian.  {8^D  Terrific geek humor is this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s46s0YcvNVM

spike





From painlord2k at libero.it  Fri Jan 30 16:38:57 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:38:57 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency =
 Disaster
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0901300104m1d1656e4k84c5ae8546fb5764@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>	<580930c20901290906l13a30fao47e8c1f6c6345c3d@mail.gmail.com>	<7.0.1.0.2.20090129112808.022c6868@satx.rr.com>	<580930c20901291010u6c1ba1afs65846ba18b1dea16@mail.gmail.com>	<498233F1.4080107@libero.it>
	<ee50357e0901300104m1d1656e4k84c5ae8546fb5764@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49832D21.9040504@libero.it>

Il 30/01/2009 10.04, BillK ha scritto:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:55 PM, painlord2k wrote:
>> Market are not perfect because they are run by human beings.
>> Like governments.
>> But market are adaptable and the loop is very short, so the negative
>> feedback is able to function better. People doing bad choices pay for them
>> so they learn to don't do them again. The same is for good choices.

> That's a restatement of the 'efficient' market theory and it just
> isn't what happens in real life.

Where in real life I can find a market more regulated by laws apart the 
banking sector? Or the medical sector?

> Nice and neat in theory but nothing
> to do with what actually happens.

Please, point us to a service a government is able to sell better than a 
private enterprise without resorting to the use of the force to sell it 
or keep other sellers away.
Or a market that is not heavy regulated.

> Booms and busts happen because of the human 'herd' mentality.

The "herd mentality" is good, because we look at what other do, what are 
the outcomes and repeat what they do, if we think the outcomes are good.
In a market, one free of government interference, the outcomes are 
strictly correlated with the actions. If the actions of others are 
wrong, we are able to see them for what they are in a short time (few 
hours, day or years) where in the same happen with the government we see

Boom and bust are a feature of the economy, because the existence of:

1) fractional reserve banking
2) fiat currency
3) legal interferences with the market

> The
> recent boom had everybody piling on because they didn't want to miss
> out on the profits everyone else appeared to be making. Like a ponzi
> scheme, it was great for those who got in early and got out before the
> boom collapsed. (Also great for the facilitators who just sat there
> raking in commissions on every trade).

In the recent boom, the causes were:
1) government forcing the banks to loan to people without credit (to 
avoid "redlining")
2) government forcing FM&FM to securitize the bad assets of (1)
3) the FED lowering the rate to nil for a few years, then rising them.

The government did it because they are "incompetent" or simply because 
they are interested in please their constituency? The span of an elected 
official is 2-4 years, so what will happen after is negligible; more 
than so if can be unloaded over "bad, evil, capitalists".


> The point is they were all making good choices on the way up and the
> feedback encouraged more of the same behavior. Then the house of cards
> fell in.

Suppose you are right.
The government give them a bailout of a trillion of $.
Why do they need to change their behaviour?
They acted so because they expected to be bailed out if problem arisen.
This is what the taxpayers are for.
To bailout the friends of the governments.

Mirco





From painlord2k at libero.it  Fri Jan 30 16:57:38 2009
From: painlord2k at libero.it (painlord2k at libero.it)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 17:57:38 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market
	Efficiency	=Disaster
In-Reply-To: <3A0CB8B0BE39431AAB0B8DC2A251314A@spike>
References: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>
	<3A0CB8B0BE39431AAB0B8DC2A251314A@spike>
Message-ID: <49833182.1010000@libero.it>

Il 30/01/2009 5.19, spike ha scritto:

>> [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK

>> The believers in efficient 'free markets' as the answer to
>> everything seem to be having a hard time of it these days.>  BillK

> On the contrary BillK.  The problem was caused by insufficient market
> freedom.  Government interference in the free market caused a crisis.  Now
> the government is proposing the solution is still more government
> interference.  It will fail of course.  My prediction is that the latest
> stimulus package will not stimulate, but rather leave the US under a
> crushing debt.

I'm Italian, I live in Italy, I saw this many times.
The government spent its way out of social political troubles (the '70 
and '80) and left a huge debts (we are around 110% of the GNP now).

They had many (near all) nationalized industries that were unproductive 
(but closing them would be politically damaging) and many private were 
subsided. At the end they were forced to sell them for a pittance or 
closing them.

It is, frankly, humorous the fact that they are now under the menace of 
60-300 K unemployed if the car sector go belly up, after all the money 
and help they gave to the FIAT in the last 40 years.
All the governments are thinking like a herd.
Germany, USA, France, Italy all they want help/bail out their car sector 
so it will survive the crisis. The problem is overproduction but if they 
all do the same, the overproduction will continue.

So, herd mentality is not only in the market, as BillK said, but also in 
the government.

Mirco


From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com  Fri Jan 30 17:27:06 2009
From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado (CI))
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:27:06 -0200
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in
	MarketEfficiency	=Disaster
References: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com><3A0CB8B0BE39431AAB0B8DC2A251314A@spike>
	<49833182.1010000@libero.it>
Message-ID: <003001c982ff$fb44c7f0$fd00a8c0@cpdhemm>

Painlord> Germany, USA, France, Italy all they want help/bail out their car 
sector
> so it will survive the crisis. The problem is overproduction but if they 
> all do the same, the overproduction will continue.
> So, herd mentality is not only in the market, as BillK said, but also in 
> the government.


The problem with the auto industry is not overproduction but underselling. 
The production volume was ok until people stopped buying.

Appart from that, this should be taken by the auto industry as an 
opportunity to do things differently. Why do cars have to be huge expensive 
hunks of steel with engines capable of towing a house? Why a four or five 
seat car to mostly transport a single person (hence an idea that I have on 
urban toll - charge for empty seats)? 



From natasha at natasha.cc  Fri Jan 30 17:47:37 2009
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 11:47:37 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Special Event:  Second Life on Saturday
Message-ID: <CBB843D8A43049DBAE4BD514EBDE9920@DFC68LF1>

"There will be a very special event in Second Life on Saturday January 31,
10am PST (1pm EST, 6pm UK, 7pm continental Europe). 

Don't tell me that I did not warn you. Click here for location and teleport
link."

 <http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Cosmic_Engineers_SL_Group>
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Cosmic_Engineers_SL_Group

 
<http://slurl.com/secondlife/Extropia%20Core/120/50/22/?img=http://cosmeng.o
rg/images/1/1c/Cosmengsl1s.jpg&title=Cosmic%20Engineers%20@%20Extropia%20Cor
e&msg=Cosmic%20Engineers%20@%20Extropia%20Core> 
 
<http://slurl.com/secondlife/Extropia%20Core/120/50/22/?img=http://cosmeng.o
rg/images/1/1c/Cosmengsl1s.jpg&title=Cosmic%20Engineers%20@%20Extropia%20Cor
e&msg=Cosmic%20Engineers%20@%20Extropia%20Core>  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090130/f2ea0fe8/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Special Event SL.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 52881 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090130/f2ea0fe8/attachment.jpg>

From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Fri Jan 30 18:18:47 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:18:47 -0500
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
References: <92720.5098.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <2EF662784E7543CBADFF72959FD9975E@MyComputer>


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Gordon Swobe" <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 7:29 AM
Subject: Re: [ExI] consciousness and perception


> --- On Wed, 1/28/09, John K Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>> Locke thought movement and temperature belonged in
>> different conceptual categories and now we know he was
>> dead wrong; Locke didn't know the first thing about
>> temperature except that if you touch something very hot it
>> hurts. Locke thought movement and rest were attributes of
>> an object itself and we know he was dead wrong about that too.
>
> I think you mischaracterize Locke. Our understanding of physics has 
> changed since Locke's day, but these changes have not in themselves 
> refuted his basic idea that we can distinguish at least two kinds of 
> properties or qualities of objects.
>
> Lockean primary qualities represent the stuff of physics. In modern 
> language we would include among them the qualities of mass, spin, charge, 
> wavelength, and so on. Lockean secondary qualities represent a different 
> sort of quality, and a sort that (to me anyway) seems related somehow to 
> whatever Brent keeps trying to say about so-called phenomenal properties.
>
> Locke defined secondary qualities philosophically as *the powers of 
> objects to affect the senses*.
>
> Using salt as an example: intelligent people of scientific mind will agree 
> that 'salty flavor' does not exist as an intrinsic or primary quality of 
> salt. No serious person would suggest that salt has a flavor in the 
> absence of a taster. But most would agree nevertheless that salt has the 
> power to taste salty, i.e., that 'salty flavor' is a Lockean secondary 
> quality of salt.
>
> On this subject I think Locke merely formalized what we all understand as 
> common sense.
>
> I couldn't understand why the baseball kept getting bigger and bigger. 
> Then it hit me.
>
> -gts
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 




From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Fri Jan 30 18:31:22 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 13:31:22 -0500
Subject: [ExI] consciousness and perception
References: <92720.5098.qm@web36506.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <D79248F095D24A41B81F6404B4A074E0@MyComputer>

"Gordon Swobe" <gts_2000 at yahoo.com>

> I think you mischaracterize Locke.

I have nothing against Locke, he did as well as anyone in his time could
have, but the idea that he has anything to teach us today about the nature
of matter is nuts. It's as if any modern theory of cosmology must be
consistent with Aristotle and his crystal spheres.

> Our understanding of physics has changed since Locke's day

You think?

> but these changes have not in themselves refuted his basic idea that we
> can distinguish at least two kinds of properties or qualities of objects.

Some may like to put various properties of matter into different conceptual
categories, but there is not a ghost of a hint that matter itself takes any
notice of our subtle distinctions, not the smallest piece of experimental
evidence. Nada zilch zero goose egg.

And if you really like categories a case could be made that temperature is
more fundamental than shape, the opposite of what Locke thought; after all,
mathematicians can fit many apparently very different shapes into the same
topological category, not so with temperature. Locke new nothing about any
of this.

> Locke defined secondary qualities philosophically as *the powers of
> objects to affect the senses*.

Even playing by Locke's rules this makes no sense. Among his primary
properties were solidity, size, shape, and number but they all effect the
senses. We now know his ideas about motion and rest were nonsense, and I'll
be damned if I can see why solidity, which is a function of the object's
chemical composition is more fundamental than taste which is also a function
of its chemical composition. Why is touch more fundamental than taste and do
you really expect electrons to agree with this distinction and act
accordingly?

> No serious person would suggest that salt has a flavor in the absence of a
> taster.

Salt has a taste in the absence of a taster to the same degree that a salt
crystal has a hardness in the absence of a feeler. Personally I don't think
electrons in salt  give a damn about feelers or tasters, certainly no
experiment has given any indication of such empathy.

 John K Clark




From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Fri Jan 30 20:49:55 2009
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:49:55 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency =
	Disaster
In-Reply-To: <49832D21.9040504@libero.it>
References: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20901290906l13a30fao47e8c1f6c6345c3d@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090129112808.022c6868@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901291010u6c1ba1afs65846ba18b1dea16@mail.gmail.com>
	<498233F1.4080107@libero.it>
	<ee50357e0901300104m1d1656e4k84c5ae8546fb5764@mail.gmail.com>
	<49832D21.9040504@libero.it>
Message-ID: <7641ddc60901301249o7133105ai57ac0b78a5a0d3c0@mail.gmail.com>

Just to chime in after a long silence - bravo, there are still
libertarians on the ExI list!

Give the statists some pain, lord!

Rafal

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 11:38 AM, painlord2k at libero.it
<painlord2k at libero.it> wrote:
> Il 30/01/2009 10.04, BillK ha scritto:
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 29, 2009 at 10:55 PM, painlord2k wrote:
>>>
>>> Market are not perfect because they are run by human beings.
>>> Like governments.
>>> But market are adaptable and the loop is very short, so the negative
>>> feedback is able to function better. People doing bad choices pay for
>>> them
>>> so they learn to don't do them again. The same is for good choices.
>
>> That's a restatement of the 'efficient' market theory and it just
>> isn't what happens in real life.
>
> Where in real life I can find a market more regulated by laws apart the
> banking sector? Or the medical sector?
>
>> Nice and neat in theory but nothing
>> to do with what actually happens.
>
> Please, point us to a service a government is able to sell better than a
> private enterprise without resorting to the use of the force to sell it or
> keep other sellers away.
> Or a market that is not heavy regulated.
>
>> Booms and busts happen because of the human 'herd' mentality.
>
> The "herd mentality" is good, because we look at what other do, what are the
> outcomes and repeat what they do, if we think the outcomes are good.
> In a market, one free of government interference, the outcomes are strictly
> correlated with the actions. If the actions of others are wrong, we are able
> to see them for what they are in a short time (few hours, day or years)
> where in the same happen with the government we see
>
> Boom and bust are a feature of the economy, because the existence of:
>
> 1) fractional reserve banking
> 2) fiat currency
> 3) legal interferences with the market
>
>> The
>> recent boom had everybody piling on because they didn't want to miss
>> out on the profits everyone else appeared to be making. Like a ponzi
>> scheme, it was great for those who got in early and got out before the
>> boom collapsed. (Also great for the facilitators who just sat there
>> raking in commissions on every trade).
>
> In the recent boom, the causes were:
> 1) government forcing the banks to loan to people without credit (to avoid
> "redlining")
> 2) government forcing FM&FM to securitize the bad assets of (1)
> 3) the FED lowering the rate to nil for a few years, then rising them.
>
> The government did it because they are "incompetent" or simply because they
> are interested in please their constituency? The span of an elected official
> is 2-4 years, so what will happen after is negligible; more than so if can
> be unloaded over "bad, evil, capitalists".
>
>
>> The point is they were all making good choices on the way up and the
>> feedback encouraged more of the same behavior. Then the house of cards
>> fell in.
>
> Suppose you are right.
> The government give them a bailout of a trillion of $.
> Why do they need to change their behaviour?
> They acted so because they expected to be bailed out if problem arisen.
> This is what the taxpayers are for.
> To bailout the friends of the governments.
>
> Mirco
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD
Chief Clinical Officer,
Gencia Corporation
706 B Forest St.

Charlottesville, VA 22903

tel: (434) 295-4800

fax: (434) 295-4951



This electronic message transmission contains information from the
biotechnology firm of Gencia Corporation which may be confidential or
privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the
individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended
recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use
of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have
received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by
telephone (434-295-4800) or by electronic mail
(fportell at genciabiotech.com) immediately.


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Fri Jan 30 21:59:06 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:59:06 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency =
	Disaster
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60901301249o7133105ai57ac0b78a5a0d3c0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20901290906l13a30fao47e8c1f6c6345c3d@mail.gmail.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090129112808.022c6868@satx.rr.com>
	<580930c20901291010u6c1ba1afs65846ba18b1dea16@mail.gmail.com>
	<498233F1.4080107@libero.it>
	<ee50357e0901300104m1d1656e4k84c5ae8546fb5764@mail.gmail.com>
	<49832D21.9040504@libero.it>
	<7641ddc60901301249o7133105ai57ac0b78a5a0d3c0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20901301359k134e3350ia65acb4ab842f8f2@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 9:49 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <
rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> Just to chime in after a long silence - bravo, there are still
> libertarians on the ExI list!

I have some degree of intellectual respect for libertarians, objectivists
and hard-core anarcho-capitalists.

But what Adam Smith or Ayn Rand would have thought of the system described
in, e.g.,

- Money as Debt,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-9050474362583451279
- Zeitgeist Addendum,
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7065205277695921912

??

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090130/be5818c5/attachment.html>

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Fri Jan 30 22:36:08 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:36:08 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Fusion Again - with a New Angle
Message-ID: <580930c20901301436g45702428ldf7eb8fe8c33650d@mail.gmail.com>

Hybrid fusion-fission reactors to run on nuclear 'sludge'

Most nuke waste actually useful fuel, say boffins

By Lewis Page<http://forms.theregister.co.uk/mail_author/?story_url=/2009/01/28/hybrid_fusion_fission_nuke_waste_plan/>?
Get
more from this author <http://search.theregister.co.uk/?author=Lewis%20Page>

Posted in Environment <http://www.theregister.co.uk/science/environment/>,
28th January 2009 13:51 GMT

Texas-based boffins say they have figured out a cunning new method of
dealing with America's nuclear waste, using fusion technology - which at the
moment can't produce power - to turn 99 per cent of fission reactors' waste
into useful energy.

"Most people cite nuclear waste as the main reason they oppose nuclear
fission as a source of power," says Swadesh Mahajan, nuke scientist at Texas
Uni. He might be wrong there - the roots of the antinuclear movement very
frequently lie in opposition to nuclear weapons - but there's no doubt that
waste is a major concern.

In particular, the cost of long-term waste storage accounts for a major
proportion of the price of fission-generated electricity.

But the Texas Uni boffins reckon that high-level nuclear waste is actually a
major resource, handled in the right way. Countries such as France and Japan
already reprocess and re-use some of their waste, but America doesn't: which
is one reason why the US has such a large waste stockpile.

The first step, according to Mahajan and his colleague Mike Kotschenreuther,
is to use the waste again in America's 100 light water reactors (LWRs), so
generating large amounts more energy. This will reduce the waste volume by
three-quarters, leaving a final 25 per cent of transuranic high-level waste
which can't be made to fission by the level of neutron radiation found
inside a normal reactor* - rather as the heaviest fractions of crude oil are
very difficult to burn. The Texas boffins refer to these wastes as "sludge".

But highly radioactive waste can't be used for road tar as heavy hydrocarbon
fractions are - it needs to be expensively stored or ideally got rid of, by
breaking it down through fission into smaller atoms.

To do this, it needs to be blasted with neutrons, even more vigorously than
it already has been in the LWRs.

"To burn this really hard to burn sludge, you really need to hit it with a
sledgehammer, and that's what we have invented here," says Kotschenreuther.

That's where the fusion tech comes in. Tokamak fusion reactors are excellent
for emitting lots of neutrons - their downside, so far, is that sustaining
the ring of neutron-spraying plasma inside the tokamak doughnut requires
more energy than the fusion reaction gives out. As a result, such reactors
are currently only used for research.

Kotschenreuther and Mahajan, however, propose putting heavy transuranic
"sludge" around a specially-pimped tokamak, fitted with a "Super X Divertor"
allowing the neutron emissions to be cranked right up without destroying the
containing doughnut. The neutron blitz would hit the surrounding heavy
wastes, fissioning them and yielding energy, though the tokamak would be
using energy up.

The scientists aren't yet going firm on whether the hybrid fusion/fission
reactor would be a net user or generator of power, but seem sure that if it
does draw juice overall it won't be much compared to that generated at the
LWR stage of the process. Also, it would be cheaper than storing the wastes.

At the end, the high-level waste needing to be stored would be one per cent
of the original amount.

"We have created a way to use fusion to relatively inexpensively destroy the
waste from nuclear fission," says Kotschenreuther.

There have long been plans to deal with nuclear wastes by neutron
bombardment, of course, but these have normally centred on the use of normal
fission-driven processes to provide the neutrons rather than fusion. Such
"fast breeder" reactors have been built by many countries. However, waste
processing has been only one of their goals - fast breeders have also been
historically seen as a means of artificially creating fissionable fuel
and/or weapons material, though this aim has lost relevance as it is
expensive and troublesome compared to mining or waste-processing. (There
turns out to be more uranium ore in the world than people thought back in
World war Two.) Most commercial-scale fast breeder facilities worldwide have
shut down in recent decades.

But Kotschenreuther seems to suggest that hybrid fusion/fission processing
would be much cheaper, so much so as to be cheaper than simply storing
wastes. He and his colleagues believe that one hybrid fusion-fission reactor
could process the transuranic "sludge" output of ten to 15 LWRs. The special
Super-X-Divertor tokamak cores of these facilities would be only the size of
a small room, according to the scientists.

Mahajan, Kotschenreuther and their colleagues obviously look forward to the
day when fusion reactors can produce abundant energy on their own, avoiding
the need for scarce uranium. On that long-anticipated day, the human race's
energy problems will largely be over - fusion, the same process that powers
the sun, involves no carbon emissions, no troublesome wastes and no finite
resources. The only fuel needed would be isotopes of hydrogen, the most
common element in the universe, easily extracted from water.

But the advent of fusion power has been expected for a long time, and the
human race needs to start getting off fossil fuels now.

"The hybrid we designed should be viewed as a bridge technology," says
Mahajan. "Through the hybrid, we can bring fusion via neutrons to the
service of the energy sector today. We can hopefully make a major
contribution to the carbon-free mix dictated by the 2050 time scale set by
global warming scientists."
The nuclear boffins say that research tokamak facilities in the UK and US
are interested in testing out their Super X Divertor tech. Their research is
published in the January issue of *Fusion Engineering and Design*. An
abstract and DOI details can be viewed here <goog_1233344399668>.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/28/hybrid_fusion_fission_nuke_waste_plan/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20090130/95961c6d/attachment.html>

From kanzure at gmail.com  Sat Jan 31 00:30:48 2009
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:30:48 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Open Manufacturing] ToolBook and The Missing Link
In-Reply-To: <2E72B59E-A944-4C0A-8F72-18C0E039397C@gmail.com>
References: <2E72B59E-A944-4C0A-8F72-18C0E039397C@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <55ad6af70901301630w2e8e829eve3bca4a69ceff1c4@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Eric Hunting <erichunting at gmail.com>
Date: Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 2:26 PM
Subject: [Open Manufacturing] ToolBook and The Missing Link
To: openmanufacturing at googlegroups.com

In following and participating in the discussions on open
manufacturing and peer-to-peer organization and as a result of
exploring the possibilities of local New Mexico Fab Lab development as
well as my own personal project ideas, I've started to notice
something. There seem to be a number of re-occurring questions that
come up -openly or in the back of peoples minds- seeming to represent
key obstacles or stumbling blocks in the progress of open
manufacturing or Maker culture. And it seems that they share something
in common. A 'missing link', if you will, in the mechanisms of
cultural development. Here are a few of these questions that stand out
for me;

Why are Makers still fooling around with toys and mash-ups and not
making serious things? (short answer; like early computer hackers
lacking off-the-shelf media to study, they're still stuck reverse-
engineering the off-the-shelf products of existing industry to learn
how the technology works and hacking is easier than making something
from scratch)

Why are Makers rarely employing many of the modular building systems
that have been around since the start of the 20th century? Why do so
few tech-savvy people seem to know what T-slot is when it's ubiquitous
in industrial automation? Why little use of Box Beam/ Grid Beam when
its cheap, easy, and has been around since the 1960s? Why does no one
in the world seem to know the origin and name of the rod and clamp
framing system used in the RepRap? (short answer: no definitive
sources of information)

Why are 'recipes' in places like Make and Instructibles most about
artifacts and rarely about tools and techniques? (short answer;
knowledge of these are being disseminated ad hoc)

Why is it so hard to collectivize support and interest for open source
artifact projects and why are forums like Open Manufacture spending
more time in discussion of theory rather than nuts & bolts making?
(short answer; no equivalent of Source Forge for a formal definition
of hardware projects -though this is tentatively being developed- and
no generally acknowledged definitive channel of communication about
open manufacturing activity)

Why are Fab Labs not self-replicating their own tools? (short answer;
no comprehensive body of open source designs for those tools and no
organized effort to reverse-engineer off-the-shelf tools to create
those open source versions)

Why is there no definitive 'users manual' for the Fab Lab, its tools,
and common techniques? (short answer; no one has bothered to write it
yet)

Why is there no Fab Lab in my neighborhood? Why so few university Fab
Labs so far? Why is it so hard to find support for Fab Lab in certain
places even in the western world? (short answer; 99% of even the
educated population still doesn't know what the hell a Fab Lab is or
what the tools it's based on are)

Why do key Post-Industrial cultural concepts remain nascent in the
contemporary culture, failing to coalesce into a cultural critical
mass? Why are entrepreneurship, cooperative entrepreneurship, and
community support networks still left largely out of the popular
discussion on recovery from the current economic crash? Why do
advocates of Post-Industrial culture and economics still often hang
their hopes on nanotechnology when so much could be done with the
technology at-hand? (short answer; no complete or documented working
models to demonstrate potential with)

Are you, as I am, starting to see a pattern here? It seems like
there's a Missing Link in the form of a kind of communications or
media gap. There is Maker media -thanks largely to the cultural
phenomenon triggered by Make magazine. But it's dominated by ad hoc
individual media produced and published on-line to communicate the
designs for individual artifacts while largely ignoring the tools.
People are learning by making, but they never seem to get the whole
picture of what they potentially could make because they aren't
getting the complete picture of what the tools are and what they're
capable of.

We seem to basically be in the MITS Altair, Computer Shack, Computer
Faire, Creative Computing, 2600 era of independent industry. A Hacker
era. Remember the early days of the personal computer? You had these
fairs, users groups, and computer stores like Computer Shack basically
acting like ad hoc ashrams of the new technology because there were no
other definitive sources of knowledge. This is exactly what Maker
fairs, Fab Labs, and forums like this one are doing. And the magazine-
dominated media for personal computing at the time was all about DIY
programming in BASIC or Pascal and hacking compared to the
contemporary computing media which is all about new products and the
elites and corporations who make them. Again, this is just like Make
magazine. As yet there is no media yet showcasing and reviewing
fabrication tools the way PC Magazine does PCs or 'market' magazines
like Computer Shopper collecting small dealers of stuff, but this is a
readily anticipated future development. And you had visionary books
like Computer Lib evangelizing the technology, culture, and it's
future potential. And that's exactly what Neil Gershenfeld's book FAB
is.

There are a lot of parallels here to the early personal computer era,
except for a couple of things; there's no equivalent of Apple (yet..),
no equivalent of the O'Reily Nutshell book series, no "##### For
Dummies" books. Now, I'm not exactly sure that having an Apple in this
field would be a good thing. Apple and companies like it then were key
to opening the door to a very open and personal Information Age. The
nature of personal computing the industry was pointing toward before
Apple was one that looked like MiniTel and laptop Videotext keyboard
terminals plugged into TVs. Apple came out of the sub-culture and
turned it mainstream, making its technology socally relevant and
ubiquitous, even if ultimately doing so for the sake of creating a
'mainstream market' to exploit for profit. But it also helped
establish a traditional Industrial Age hegemony based on turning
personal computers from tools people understood into mass-produced
appliances the public used and yet never really came to comprehend and
so remains dependent upon a corporate hegemony for. One might argue
that this was a necessary evil by virtue of the complexity of the
technology and the failure of public education to embrace and
disseminate new knowledge effectively. But the end result was that the
promise of social liberation information technology originally
promised was superseded and forgotten. I think this is cautionary
history. Do we want a Fabber that no one ever opens up or truly
understands the working of? Or is this, on some level, still a
necessary evil for the sake of realizing ubiquity? 40 years later,
Grandma still isn't writing code and still has trouble finding the on-
switch. What exactly does that mean for these new tools?

Then as now, there was this gap in the parallel dissemination of
knowledge with the technology. Disseminating the power of computing
very quickly went from being about disseminating knowledge to putting
mass produced products in people's hands at a 'reasonable' cost,
largely because the communication of knowledge proved so much more
difficult for an increasingly exclusive sub-culture composed largely
of misanthropic nerds to pull-off than selling the technology by the
novelties of its turn-key applications and 'style'. (pay no attention
to that man behind the stylish ABS clamshell case...) But the end
result of that strategy is clear; Silicon Detroit. Real progress in
personal computer development is now reduced to a snail's-pace because
of the drag of hegemonies. Moore's Law isn't translating into
productivity gains, let alone social liberation.

I think the folks at MIT may have clued into this issue early on in
devising the concept of the Fab Lab. But their solution is typically
academic-minded. The Fab Lab is an ashram. There's nothing wrong with
that. It's a good model. However, it's ability to communicate is
limited by proximity. So you have to make a lot of them to spread the
message. And that is limited by the population of experts since it
doesn't leverage their accumulated knowledge that well. This is being
done remarkably swiftly for what it is, but if it was in competition
with an Apple Fabber -and it may soon be- it would lose to PC style
market cultivation over true education. The key limitation here is
that Fab Labs don't don't network their own knowledge coherently and
they don't publish.

The Make magazine and blog publishes. Thing is, they don't quite know
what they're doing or where it's going. They're surfing a meme with a
YouTube model, letting it carry them rather than directing it in any
particular way. It works extremely well as a medium for the exchange
of incoherent hacker-style knowledge and it's much more culturally
accessible because of its visual media, but it's not that good at
communicating knowledge in an organized way and as the sub-culture it
embodies becomes more technically sophisticated, it will inadvertently
produce barriers to its own accessibility. Eventually, fewer and fewer
articles and recipes will make any sense to John Q. Public. But take
note of something. Who is their parent publishing company? O'Reily.
Someone upstairs may be watching and waiting for some sign that it's
time for some strategic partnerships and "Epilog Laser in a Nutshell"...

Thinking on this, I'm struck by the question of what, then, is the
functional role of an open manufacturing movement in the context of
all this? What's the Missing Link? What collectively should the
activities of this movement coalesce around for maximum cultural
impact? The answer seems to be organized knowledge. If we are to
preclude the outcome of an Apple Fabber degenerating the movement into
another Silicon Detroit the key is in the effective dissemination of
knowledge over and ahead of the dissemination of products. And that
would suggest that what's missing in this movement is publishing. The
systematic creation and dissemination of a large body of knowledge in
the most accessible forms possible. Fab Labs have lead the way in this
task, but they don't publish and so they don't leverage their
dissemination potential that broadly. Make and the like publish, but
they don't publish much that's coherent. They're 2600 for Makers.

This brings me to the notion that, perhaps, the effective role of the
movement is that of a knowledge generating and publishing engine with
the objective being to use the generation of media as a means of
achieving ubiquitous accessibility for the technology through the
accessibility of the knowledge in parallel with the technology. in
other words, technology disseminated merely through the dissemination
of products is a process of encryption that limits limits its
liberating potential. But technology disseminated through the
dissemination of knowledge through media is a process of decryption
that enables its liberating potential. We need to think not just about
the cultivation of the technology itself but the forms -media forms-
in which we disseminate it and what cultural impact that has. So lets
imagine a Fab Lab -or the Fab Labs collectively- as an ashram that
publishes. A movement as an engineering laboratory whose output isn't
products but media about the technology it cultivates.

This is sort of what I was thinking about with the Vajra Maker
Incubator concept. It might run an open Fab shop, but it's key job is
to gather and cultivate open technology -and the people who invent it-
while producing media about what its doing and how its doing it -which
would be how its residents earn a living. The community creates a
haven for this intellectual activity -distributing the high cost of
tools- and pays for itself on the publishing royalties -which is much
the same model as the traditional artists commune which pays for
itself by creating an environment conducive to those artists'
creativity and then gets a cut on the sale of what they produce to
keep going. Corporate industrial research laboratories do much the
same thing, only they're objective is to output patents -an
intellectual and technological real estate scam. This community would
be outputting the same thing, intellectually, only it's in the form of
open technology which people make a living from based on the sale of
the media that conveys it rather than controlling and exploiting the
use of it -which is one of the common ways Linux and other open
software is 'monetized'. This seems to parallel Cory Doctorow's and
others vision of the Maker Monastery as a bastion of EcoTech and heart
of an Outquisition movement. (though I'm liking the ashram analogy
much better. Much less Gothic in aspect) Self sufficiency isn't
possible for such a haven early on given the available technology. So
it either needs a lot of extremely wealthy sugar daddies to support it
indefinitely as a gift -and life preserver- to future generations,
bootstraps from a very low-tech agrarian model, or it plugs-into and
exploits the outside economy in a way their least interferes with its
social objectives -and publishing seems to suit that. Maybe any
combination of all three would work.

Now this notion isn't necessarily limited to some community in one
place. As Make demonstrates, thanks to the Internet our ashrams can be
virtual. Living in proximity to tools one can't afford alone is a big
help, of course, but the key here is the community network and the
development and publishing models. Not all makers are particularly
good writers, illustrators, photographers, and videographers. The
production of marketable media will likely often demand collaboration.
And not all these people need continuous access to workshops. Also,
some people will personally invest more in personal workshop
facilities simply because they need more privacy for the sake of their
own productivity. And, of course, for this to be effective as a
movement it has to be able to function across many locations around
the globe.

This is where that word ToolBook comes in. This is my imagined 'brand'
for the publishing cooperative that this community would coalesce
around. It would be like the 'Nutshell' and 'Dummies' books series
name but would also be the publishing co-op company's name, ultimately
a multi-national corporation. The basic 'deal' of the community is
that, collectively, it owns a series of resources -workshops, live-in
villages, data centers for web hosting and such, media production
facilities, supplies warehouses, etc., under the ToolBook Publishing
company name with individuals sharing ownership through stock in that
company -much like a Kelsonian Community Investment Corporation. The
individual maker in this community applies for facilities for any
particular development project which is intended to culminate in the
production of one or more forms of media whose sales -or ad revenue-
will recoup the expense of development. Now some things might be
really small and simple so all the maker is looking for would be
publishing assistance akin to LuLu.com, for which he receives a
royalty on unit sales. If he must collaborate with writers or artists,
they too would share those royalties. Other projects may require a lot
of facilities and thus represent a greater investment decision based
on the maker's reputation and the collective opinion on the value and
importance of the project among the whole community. So here is where
peer-to-peer organization an social credit come in with projects
needing increasing communal support and collaboration the more
elaborate they are and a formal community-wide project submission,
evaluation, and management scheme, web based. And if the community
member is living in a community-owned village then they are sharing
some portion their royalties with that local community by way of
'rent' relative to their other forms of input to the local economy of
that village. A diverse collection of media would be produced by this
co-op; print and eBook media in casual to college-level forms,
streaming and packaged video, blogs, events, talks, etc. And it would
go beyond media to include project kits, small production or made on
demand products, one-of-a-kind pieces, and so on. Individual community
member activities could also split-off into industrial production -
with both an external for-profit component and an internal community
support component- particular with the production of stock materials
for other makers to use. Villages might also generate products for
their local economy, such as surplus produce from small farm operations.

How does this model seem? Nonsense, or maybe feasible?

Eric Hunting
erichunting at gmail.com




--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "Open Manufacturing" group.
To post to this group, send email to openmanufacturing at googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
openmanufacturing+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/openmanufacturing?hl=en
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---


From thomas at thomasoliver.net  Fri Jan 30 21:22:49 2009
From: thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:22:49 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
Message-ID: <24BE0201-FA5F-42EB-8C7B-2BE90059C279@thomasoliver.net>

> The believers in efficient 'free markets' as the answer to everything
> seem to be having a hard time of it these days.
>
> BillK

I don't know what BillK intended with the single quotes around 'free  
markets,' but it seems to highlight the fact that they haven't yet  
existed in reality.

As long as we have taxes (or any other form of coercion in the  
market) then believers in freedom will probably have a hard time.

I don't think belief in a free market or in the golden rule (a  
similar concept) implies that someone has fanatical tendencies, as  
you seem to imply.  Comparing the free market to conscious breathing  
we see two simple, direct methods which don't answer everything or  
solve every problem, but they offer huge benefit and improvement with  
minimum effort.

The human "herd" has yet to evolve out of (albeit somewhat  
sublimated) animal violence.  I would set that as the primary goal of  
the extropian impulse.  I think we have auto evolution within our  
scope now.  You don't have to believe in "free will" to see that  
force and fraud, not freedom, got us into this mess.   -- Thomas



From thomas at thomasoliver.net  Fri Jan 30 22:16:44 2009
From: thomas at thomasoliver.net (Thomas)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 15:16:44 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
Message-ID: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>

> Markets need civilizing and laws, just like property and human  
> behaviour.
>
> BillK


Free market traders with education, enlightenment and refinement  
(civilized) have the advantage over savages.
Markets regulated by laws of privilege (such as the corporate veil)  
favor the ruthless and arbitrary over the rational.
I think a universal ban on collective title to property would go a  
long way toward civilizing markets.
The golden rule seems like the only rule we really need.  Violent  
punishment of human behavior has not proven effective.
In a free society, loss of market share would supplant stupid  
violence as a motivator.  Got any better ideas?  -- Thomas


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jan 31 01:49:06 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:49:06 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>

At 03:16 PM 1/30/2009 -0700, Thomas wrote contra regulation:

>Free market traders with education, enlightenment and refinement
>(civilized) have the advantage over savages.

And, until 150 years ago, often owned them as chattels. (Or were 
those not free market traders?)

Damien Broderick




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jan 31 01:52:32 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:52:32 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Markets and slaves
In-Reply-To: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090130195054.02387090@satx.rr.com>

and speaking of slavery:

<http://www.geocities.com/Heartland/Bluffs/3010/slavery.htm>

<The Emancipation Proclamation may have been one of the great 
landmarks in American history, but it was also the cause for perhaps 
the greatest instantaneous loss of property in American history, in 
terms of the wealth of the day.  The first time I saw a tax roll for 
a Florida county, I was shocked at the value placed on slaves.   Five 
hundred dollars each was about minimum, and it was not uncommon to 
value some slaves at $1,000 or more.   This was a time when land 
could be purchased from the Federal government for $1.25 per acre, 
and in some cases for as little as 12.5 cents per acre.   One slave 
was worth as much as hundreds and even thousands of acres of land. >

<To put the economic importance of slaves in West Florida into 
perspective, let's look at the 1863 Walton County tax roll.   The 
total of the property values in the county was distributed as follows:



                                              Real 
estate......................14%
                                              Farm 
animals...................24%
                                              Money and notes.............11%
                                              Other personal property...6%
                                              Slaves..............................45%  
Slaves..............................45% >




From fauxever at sprynet.com  Sat Jan 31 02:04:09 2009
From: fauxever at sprynet.com (Olga Bourlin)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 18:04:09 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <9FA9E8AE22014E9983BABB9320826058@patrick4ezsk6z>

From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>
To: "ExI chat list" <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
Sent: Friday, January 30, 2009 5:49 PM


> At 03:16 PM 1/30/2009 -0700, Thomas wrote contra regulation:
>
>>Free market traders with education, enlightenment and refinement
>>(civilized) have the advantage over savages.
>
> And, until 150 years ago, often owned them as chattels. (Or were those not 
> free market traders?)

Fuck yeah!  Damien, as usual, armed with his trusty ... Laser of Truth! ... 
shatters another shibboleth.

Thank you, kind sir ... :)
Olga 



From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Jan 31 02:17:49 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:17:49 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency =
	Disaster
In-Reply-To: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30901301817j5ce8b9e3yb4de15b703033a38@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/30 BillK <pharos at gmail.com>:

> GMO's quarterly update, by Jeremy Grantham has an enjoyable rant
> blaming believers in the efficient market theory for the economy
> crashing.
> <http://www.gmo.com/websitecontent/JGLetter_4Q08.pdf>
>
> Quote:
> The incredibly inaccurate efficient market theory was believed in
> totality by many of our ?nancial leaders, and believed in part by
> almost all. It left our economic and governmental establishment
> sitting by con?dently, even as a lethally dangerous combination of
> asset bubbles, lax controls, pernicious incentives, and wickedly
> complicated instruments led to our current plight. "Surely none of
> this could happen in a rational, efficient world," they seemed to be
> thinking. And the absolutely worst aspect of this belief set was that
> it led to a chronic underestimation of the dangers of asset bubbles
> breaking ? the very severe loss of perceived wealth and the stranded
> debt that comes with a savage write-down of assets.
> ---------
>
> The believers in efficient 'free markets' as the answer to everything
> seem to be having a hard time of it these days.

Please note that there are two possible meanings for "efficient market
theory". The more common one in economics is the idea that the market
prices a security to reflect all the information available, so that it
is in general not possible for a speculator to beat the market unless
he has special information:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Efficient_market_hypothesis

The article cited is talking about something quite different: the idea
that if markets are left free from government interference that will
always be for the better. This has come to be accepted as indisputable
fact by neocons since the early 1980's, with Reagan and Thatcher its
most influential proponents. The result has been a 25 year debt
bubble, so that the US economy came to consist largely of retail and
financial services. The bubble has now well and truly burst and it
looks like there is no escaping years of relative poverty for both
debtor and creditor nations ahead.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jan 31 02:49:52 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:49:52 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090130204745.023cb980@satx.rr.com>

At 07:49 PM 1/30/2009 -0600, I wrote:

>>Free market traders with education, enlightenment and refinement
>>(civilized) have the advantage over savages.
>
>And, until 150 years ago, often owned them as chattels. (Or were 
>those not free market traders?)

I suppose I should confess that I've strayed from the *market 
efficiency* claim by smuggling in moral considerations of a different 
kind. It's very plausible that a vigorous free market would get you a 
*really good price* on a slave.

Damien Broderick 



From moulton at moulton.com  Sat Jan 31 03:50:22 2009
From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 19:50:22 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <1233373822.2019.1557.camel@hayek>


On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 19:49 -0600, Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 03:16 PM 1/30/2009 -0700, Thomas wrote contra regulation:
> 
> >Free market traders with education, enlightenment and refinement
> >(civilized) have the advantage over savages.
> 
> And, until 150 years ago, often owned them as chattels. (Or were 
> those not free market traders?)

Regardless of how one feels about regulation it is obvious that slavery
can not be part of a free market system.  By definition.  Since the
slaves do not have ownership of the results of their labor and more to
the point slaves do not have ownership of themselves in being able to
determine what kind of work to do; where to live; etc.  I have read that
for this reason the term "man stealer" was used as a derogatory term for
a slaver owner and/or trader.

Fred




From spike66 at att.net  Sat Jan 31 04:34:30 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:34:30 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <9FA9E8AE22014E9983BABB9320826058@patrick4ezsk6z>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net><7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
	<9FA9E8AE22014E9983BABB9320826058@patrick4ezsk6z>
Message-ID: <ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>



> Subject: Re: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
> 
> From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com> 
> 
> > At 03:16 PM 1/30/2009 -0700, Thomas wrote contra regulation:
> >
> >>Free market traders with education, enlightenment and refinement
> >>(civilized) have the advantage over savages.
> >
> > And, until 150 years ago, often owned them as chattels. (Or 
> were those not free market traders?)


The slavers were not free market traders, for there was the threat of force
of government to discourage the chattel from rising up and slaying their
"owners."  True free markets assume every person equal and free.  

spike







From spike66 at att.net  Sat Jan 31 04:16:44 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 20:16:44 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency
	=Disaster
In-Reply-To: <7641ddc60901301249o7133105ai57ac0b78a5a0d3c0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com><580930c20901290906l13a30fao47e8c1f6c6345c3d@mail.gmail.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090129112808.022c6868@satx.rr.com><580930c20901291010u6c1ba1afs65846ba18b1dea16@mail.gmail.com><498233F1.4080107@libero.it><ee50357e0901300104m1d1656e4k84c5ae8546fb5764@mail.gmail.com><49832D21.9040504@libero.it>
	<7641ddc60901301249o7133105ai57ac0b78a5a0d3c0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9E188F01DB0D4778B1BCEDE85FF45B27@spike>

 

> On Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market 
> Efficiency =Disaster
> 
> Just to chime in after a long silence - bravo, there are 
> still libertarians on the ExI list!
> 
> Give the statists some pain, lord!
> 
> Rafal



Rafal!  Haven't heard from you in a long time.  Welcome the heck back,
wherever you have been.  {8-]

I too was pleased to see the free-marketers have not lost their courage, the
way our previous so-called president did in the face of a crisis.  It is
imperative upon us to save the free market system in this country, the
bastion of freedom for the past two centuries.  Should it fail, there is no
longer another America to which we may flee.

spike






From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jan 31 04:46:26 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:46:26 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
	<9FA9E8AE22014E9983BABB9320826058@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090130224416.02340008@satx.rr.com>

At 08:34 PM 1/30/2009 -0800, spike wrote:

>True free markets assume every person equal and free.

The curious thing is that communist soteriology, for example, or so I 
gather, makes the very same assumption.

Damien Broderick 



From moulton at moulton.com  Sat Jan 31 05:58:56 2009
From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:58:56 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090130224416.02340008@satx.rr.com>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
	<9FA9E8AE22014E9983BABB9320826058@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130224416.02340008@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <1233381536.2019.1585.camel@hayek>


On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 22:46 -0600, Damien Broderick wrote:
> At 08:34 PM 1/30/2009 -0800, spike wrote:
> 
> >True free markets assume every person equal and free.
> 
> The curious thing is that communist soteriology, for example, or so I 
> gather, makes the very same assumption.
> 

I also heard that the communists hold that all are equal.  However
somebody has been spreading a rumor that the communists hold that some
are more equal than others.

Rumors, rumors everywhere ...






From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jan 31 06:47:18 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:47:18 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <1233381536.2019.1585.camel@hayek>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
	<9FA9E8AE22014E9983BABB9320826058@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130224416.02340008@satx.rr.com>
	<1233381536.2019.1585.camel@hayek>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090131003811.024e67b8@satx.rr.com>

At 09:58 PM 1/30/2009 -0800, Fred wrote:

>somebody has been spreading a rumor that the communists hold that some
>are more equal than others.

The curious thing is that almost every ideology these days, in 
practice even when not explicitly in theory, holds the same view.

E.g.: Bernard Maddoff (not known to be a communist) vs. Roy Brown:

<http://www.womanist-musings.com/2009/01/justice-is-white-mans-word.html>
==========================================

Bernard Madoff ran a 50 billion dollar Ponzi scheme. Over the 
Christmas season he attempted to send jewellery to his sons and the 
prosecutor suspects that he is busy trying to hide assets.  At least 
one man has already committed suicide upon learning of the money that 
he lost by investing with him. Bernard Madoff is yet another example 
of the ways in which whiteness is privileged in the justice system. 
Many who invested their life savings with him are on the verge of 
financial disaster.  To him his victims were just faceless entities 
but the people <http://primebuzz.kcstar.com/?q=node/16589>who had 
their retirement savings invested with him, counted on him to be 
honest in his dealings.  Here we have a man who ran one of the 
biggest financial scams of all time and where is he sleeping - in his own bed.

Let's do a comparison between Bernard Madoff and 54 year old Roy Brown.


A man who said he robbed a downtown Shreveport bank because he was 
out of a job and hungry has been sentenced to 15 years in prison for 
first-degree robbery.

Roy Brown, 54, of Audrey Lane, pleaded guilty in Caddo District Court 
to robbing the Capital One bank in December 2007. Brown admitted 
walking up to a teller with one of his hands under his jacket and 
telling her it was a "stickup."

The teller handed the man three stacks of bills and he took a single 
$100 bill, told her he was homeless and left, police said.

Brown surrendered to police the next day, telling them his mother 
didn't raise him that way.
Police let him sober up and interviewed him two days later. Police 
said Brown told them he needed money to stay in a downtown detox 
center, had nowhere to stay and was hungry -- so he walked up the 
street and robbed the bank.

Here we have two vastly different interactions with the justice 
system; a black man who turned himself in after stealing one hundred 
dollars because he hungry and Madoff who stole billions to feed his 
greed and ego. How does the man who stole 100 dollars out of a sense 
of desperation merit 15 years in jail, while the billionaire sits in 
his luxurious home surrounded by his ill gotten gains?  Someone want 
to tell me again about how blind the justice system is?

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

Damien Broderick




From spike66 at att.net  Sat Jan 31 06:23:56 2009
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 22:23:56 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090130224416.02340008@satx.rr.com>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net><7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com><9FA9E8AE22014E9983BABB9320826058@patrick4ezsk6z><ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130224416.02340008@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <0C97D8F32229491085C65EF2A17144ED@spike>


 
> Damien Broderick
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
> 
> At 08:34 PM 1/30/2009 -0800, spike wrote:
> 
> >True free markets assume every person equal and free.
> 
> The curious thing is that communist soteriology, for example, 
> or so I gather, makes the very same assumption.
> 
> Damien Broderick 

Yes and I am in full agreement with the commies on that.  In fact I agree
with them up to the point when they reach for my wallet, at which time we
have an instant and massive divergence of opinion.  If the commies will give
up their own money according to their own abilities, giving to those who
need, and keep their grubby paws off of my money, I have no objection to
communism at all.

My own version of communism would run like this:  From each according to his
ability, to each according to his need, up to each to decide his own
abilities and needs.

spike






From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Jan 31 06:52:21 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 17:52:21 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
	<9FA9E8AE22014E9983BABB9320826058@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30901302252j3b1d8a1bodac46c7213c6014b@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/31 Fred C. Moulton <moulton at moulton.com> wrote:

> Regardless of how one feels about regulation it is obvious that slavery
> can not be part of a free market system.  By definition.  Since the
> slaves do not have ownership of the results of their labor and more to
> the point slaves do not have ownership of themselves in being able to
> determine what kind of work to do; where to live; etc.  I have read that
> for this reason the term "man stealer" was used as a derogatory term for
> a slaver owner and/or trader.

Also,

2009/1/31 spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> The slavers were not free market traders, for there was the threat of force
> of government to discourage the chattel from rising up and slaying their
> "owners."  True free markets assume every person equal and free.

So if the workers are prevented from rising up and taking over the
results of their labours, is that government interference with the
free market?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Jan 31 07:19:59 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 18:19:59 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <0C97D8F32229491085C65EF2A17144ED@spike>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
	<9FA9E8AE22014E9983BABB9320826058@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130224416.02340008@satx.rr.com>
	<0C97D8F32229491085C65EF2A17144ED@spike>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30901302319v6021f65er55b736b675d274c0@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/31 spike <spike66 at att.net>:

> Yes and I am in full agreement with the commies on that.  In fact I agree
> with them up to the point when they reach for my wallet, at which time we
> have an instant and massive divergence of opinion.  If the commies will give
> up their own money according to their own abilities, giving to those who
> need, and keep their grubby paws off of my money, I have no objection to
> communism at all.
>
> My own version of communism would run like this:  From each according to his
> ability, to each according to his need, up to each to decide his own
> abilities and needs.

"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is
not the central idea of communism. If there is one central idea in
Marxist economic theory it is that the wealth of society is produced
by workers - labourers, intellectuals, managers - and, therefore, the
wealth that accrues to a capitalist must be stolen. The communist
would therefore agree with you that a person should keep the fruits of
his labour. An exception might be made on compassionate grounds for
transferring some wealth to those who are poor and unable to work, but
certainly not for transferring wealth from the workers to the rich and
powerful.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jan 31 07:40:01 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:40:01 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30901302252j3b1d8a1bodac46c7213c6014b@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
	<9FA9E8AE22014E9983BABB9320826058@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>
	<f21c22e30901302252j3b1d8a1bodac46c7213c6014b@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49840051.2040704@mac.com>

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 2009/1/31 Fred C. Moulton <moulton at moulton.com> wrote:
> 
>> Regardless of how one feels about regulation it is obvious that slavery
>> can not be part of a free market system.  By definition.  Since the
>> slaves do not have ownership of the results of their labor and more to
>> the point slaves do not have ownership of themselves in being able to
>> determine what kind of work to do; where to live; etc.  I have read that
>> for this reason the term "man stealer" was used as a derogatory term for
>> a slaver owner and/or trader.
> 
> Also,
> 
> 2009/1/31 spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> 
>> The slavers were not free market traders, for there was the threat of force
>> of government to discourage the chattel from rising up and slaying their
>> "owners."  True free markets assume every person equal and free.
> 
> So if the workers are prevented from rising up and taking over the
> results of their labours, is that government interference with the
> free market?
> 

Does anyone really believe that the products are just the results of the 
workers labors versus the capitalist, founders, etc?

- samantha


From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jan 31 07:44:01 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:44:01 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30901302319v6021f65er55b736b675d274c0@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
	<9FA9E8AE22014E9983BABB9320826058@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130224416.02340008@satx.rr.com>
	<0C97D8F32229491085C65EF2A17144ED@spike>
	<f21c22e30901302319v6021f65er55b736b675d274c0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <49840141.5020801@mac.com>

Stathis Papaioannou wrote:
> 2009/1/31 spike <spike66 at att.net>:
> 
>> Yes and I am in full agreement with the commies on that.  In fact I agree
>> with them up to the point when they reach for my wallet, at which time we
>> have an instant and massive divergence of opinion.  If the commies will give
>> up their own money according to their own abilities, giving to those who
>> need, and keep their grubby paws off of my money, I have no objection to
>> communism at all.
>>
>> My own version of communism would run like this:  From each according to his
>> ability, to each according to his need, up to each to decide his own
>> abilities and needs.
> 
> "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is
> not the central idea of communism. If there is one central idea in
> Marxist economic theory it is that the wealth of society is produced
> by workers - labourers, intellectuals, managers - and, therefore, the
> wealth that accrues to a capitalist must be stolen.

Try employing any of those people, or let them do much of anything 
without any working capital.  If you can, then the "capitalist" would be 
out of a job with no revolution needed, right?  If you cannot, then 
something is wrong with the theory.\

> The communist
> would therefore agree with you that a person should keep the fruits of
> his labour. An exception might be made on compassionate grounds for
> transferring some wealth to those who are poor and unable to work, but
> certainly not for transferring wealth from the workers to the rich and
> powerful.
>

Either I keep what is my own to dispose of it as I wish or I do not. 
Why is it up to someone else what part of my wealthy goes to those some 
may judge to be poor and needy?  So the only sin is for your work to be 
voluntarily judge to be of more value by those who wish to acquire it 
than the work of your neighbor?

- s



From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jan 31 07:46:12 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:46:12 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30901302319v6021f65er55b736b675d274c0@mail.gmail.co
 m>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
	<9FA9E8AE22014E9983BABB9320826058@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130224416.02340008@satx.rr.com>
	<0C97D8F32229491085C65EF2A17144ED@spike>
	<f21c22e30901302319v6021f65er55b736b675d274c0@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090131013245.023188f0@satx.rr.com>

At 06:19 PM 1/31/2009 +1100, Stathis wrote:

>If there is one central idea in
>Marxist economic theory it is that the wealth of society is produced
>by workers - labourers, intellectuals, managers - and, therefore, the
>wealth that accrues to a capitalist must be stolen. The communist
>would therefore agree with you that a person should keep the fruits of
>his labour.

In a thumbnail, yes. And the famous error of that analysis is the 
claim that the capitalist makes no remunerative contribution to the 
increase of wealth. Acknowledging this error doesn't, however, 
necessitate agreeing that every capitalist who can get away with it 
deserves nearly all the cream off the top, nor that other ways of 
handling investment cannot be as effective (see, as usual, some of 
the experience reported* of the Mondragon anarchistic cooperative 
approach in Basque Spain--which inevitably also has its detractors).

Damien Broderick
*e.g.: <http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/long_mondragon.html> 
or my friend Dr. Race Mathews' "Jobs of Our Own: Building a 
Stakeholder Society" 



From sjatkins at mac.com  Sat Jan 31 07:46:18 2009
From: sjatkins at mac.com (samantha)
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 23:46:18 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
	<9FA9E8AE22014E9983BABB9320826058@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>
Message-ID: <498401CA.6080602@mac.com>

spike wrote:
> 
>> Subject: Re: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
>>
>> From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com> 
>>
>>> At 03:16 PM 1/30/2009 -0700, Thomas wrote contra regulation:
>>>
>>>> Free market traders with education, enlightenment and refinement
>>>> (civilized) have the advantage over savages.
>>> And, until 150 years ago, often owned them as chattels. (Or 
>> were those not free market traders?)
> 
> 
> The slavers were not free market traders, for there was the threat of force
> of government to discourage the chattel from rising up and slaying their
> "owners."  True free markets assume every person equal and free.  

Free markets require freedom. Slaves by definiton are not free. 
Equality is a weasel worth.  Equal only in freedom.  In reality people 
are not equal in abilities, in character, in ambition, in physical 
beauty, etc, etc.  They will not be equal in the results they achieve 
either.  So what?

- s


From moulton at moulton.com  Sat Jan 31 08:26:26 2009
From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 00:26:26 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090131003811.024e67b8@satx.rr.com>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
	<9FA9E8AE22014E9983BABB9320826058@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130224416.02340008@satx.rr.com>
	<1233381536.2019.1585.camel@hayek>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090131003811.024e67b8@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <1233390386.2019.1653.camel@hayek>


I doubt you will find anyone on this list praising the current workings
of the legal system in the USA.  In this particular situation the case
was tried in Caddo Parish, Louisiana.

Louisiana ... why am I not surprised?

I had at first guessed that it might have been one of those mandatory
minimum situations that some states have when there is a firearm (real
or pretend) involved.  However according to this blog:
http://www.wesawthat.blogspot.com/2009/01/shreveport-man-gets-15-years-for.html
the Prosecutor (Paul Carmouche) may have asked for the long sentence
because he had recently lost an election for a Congressional seat and
the slogan used against him was "cut'em loose Carmouche".  I do not know
if this is the correct explanation however I would not be surprised.  Of
course this does not explain why the Judge went along with it.

Fred




From moulton at moulton.com  Sat Jan 31 09:03:02 2009
From: moulton at moulton.com (Fred C. Moulton)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 01:03:02 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <498401CA.6080602@mac.com>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
	<9FA9E8AE22014E9983BABB9320826058@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>  <498401CA.6080602@mac.com>
Message-ID: <1233392582.2019.1665.camel@hayek>


On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 23:46 -0800, samantha wrote:
>   In reality people 
> are not equal in abilities, in character, in ambition, in physical 
> beauty, etc, etc.  They will not be equal in the results they achieve 
> either.  So what?

We should not forget that there are other factors such as where people
were born and raised; what school they attended or if they faced
discrimination; etc.  And these factors can have an effect on other
factors such as character, ambition and abilities.  

These issues are very complex.

Fred




From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Jan 31 09:59:38 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 20:59:38 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <49840141.5020801@mac.com>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
	<9FA9E8AE22014E9983BABB9320826058@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130224416.02340008@satx.rr.com>
	<0C97D8F32229491085C65EF2A17144ED@spike>
	<f21c22e30901302319v6021f65er55b736b675d274c0@mail.gmail.com>
	<49840141.5020801@mac.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30901310159x40c20cbele30622007f10ce08@mail.gmail.com>

2009/1/31 samantha <sjatkins at mac.com>:

> Try employing any of those people, or let them do much of anything without
> any working capital.  If you can, then the "capitalist" would be out of a
> job with no revolution needed, right?  If you cannot, then something is
> wrong with the theory.\

The question is, where does the legitimacy of the capitalist's
ownership of potentially productive resources come from? Note that the
moral question is separate from the practical question: to show that
it is useful to allow some people to acquire large fortunes is not
necessarily the same as saying that it is fair.

>> The communist
>> would therefore agree with you that a person should keep the fruits of
>> his labour. An exception might be made on compassionate grounds for
>> transferring some wealth to those who are poor and unable to work, but
>> certainly not for transferring wealth from the workers to the rich and
>> powerful.
>>
>
> Either I keep what is my own to dispose of it as I wish or I do not. Why is
> it up to someone else what part of my wealthy goes to those some may judge
> to be poor and needy?  So the only sin is for your work to be voluntarily
> judge to be of more value by those who wish to acquire it than the work of
> your neighbor?

We have here a moral principle which you either accept or reject, and
further argument is futile.



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Jan 31 09:59:40 2009
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 09:59:40 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency =
	Disaster
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30901301817j5ce8b9e3yb4de15b703033a38@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30901301817j5ce8b9e3yb4de15b703033a38@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <ee50357e0901310159l50310d44mcb18da6ff7021484@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 2:17 AM, Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:
> The article cited is talking about something quite different: the idea
> that if markets are left free from government interference that will
> always be for the better. This has come to be accepted as indisputable
> fact by neocons since the early 1980's, with Reagan and Thatcher its
> most influential proponents. The result has been a 25 year debt
> bubble, so that the US economy came to consist largely of retail and
> financial services. The bubble has now well and truly burst and it
> looks like there is no escaping years of relative poverty for both
> debtor and creditor nations ahead.
>


Agreed. My interest is in understanding the world as it actually
exists and trying to make the best of what is available.

The intellectual constructs of 'free market' enthusiasts seem mostly
irrelevant as they can never exist where humans interact. One human
will always have some advantage over another, so their interaction can
never be truly 'free'. Just because you *can* buy Manhattan from the
natives very cheaply (in a 'free market') doesn't make it right.


BillK


From eschatoon at gmail.com  Sat Jan 31 11:57:15 2009
From: eschatoon at gmail.com (Eschatoon Magic)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:57:15 +0100
Subject: [ExI] [ExtroBritannia] Special Event: Second Life on Saturday
In-Reply-To: <CBB843D8A43049DBAE4BD514EBDE9920@DFC68LF1>
References: <CBB843D8A43049DBAE4BD514EBDE9920@DFC68LF1>
Message-ID: <1fa8c3b90901310357p3c9270dblc6b024709d604561@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks for reposting Natasha - we cannot say much more at this moment,
but you (yes, you) want to come.

G.

On Fri, Jan 30, 2009 at 6:47 PM, Natasha Vita-More <natasha at natasha.cc> wrote:
> "There will be a very special event in Second Life on Saturday January 31,
> 10am PST (1pm EST, 6pm UK, 7pm continental Europe).
>
> Don't tell me that I did not warn you. Click here for location and teleport
> link."
>
> <http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Cosmic_Engineers_SL_Group>
> http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Cosmic_Engineers_SL_Group
>
> <http://slurl.com/secondlife/Extropia%20Core/120/50/22/?img=http://cosmeng.o
> rg/images/1/1c/Cosmengsl1s.jpg&title=Cosmic%20Engineers%20@%20Extropia%20Cor
> e&msg=Cosmic%20Engineers%20@%20Extropia%20Core>
>
> <http://slurl.com/secondlife/Extropia%20Core/120/50/22/?img=http://cosmeng.o
> rg/images/1/1c/Cosmengsl1s.jpg&title=Cosmic%20Engineers%20@%20Extropia%20Cor
> e&msg=Cosmic%20Engineers%20@%20Extropia%20Core>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
> __._,_.___
> Messages in this topic (1) Reply (via web post) | Start a new topic
> Messages | Database
> MARKETPLACE
> ________________________________
> From kitchen basics to easy recipes - join the Group from Kraft Foods
> Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
> Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format
> to Traditional
> Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
> Recent Activity
>
>  1
> New Members
>
> Visit Your Group
> New web site?
>
> Drive traffic now.
>
> Get your business
>
> on Yahoo! search.
>
> Yahoo! Groups
>
> Cat Owners Group
>
> Connect and share with
>
> others who love their cats
>
> 10 Day Club
>
> on Yahoo! Groups
>
> Share the benefits
>
> of a high fiber diet.
>
> .
> __,_._,___



-- 
Eschatoon Magic
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Eschatoon
aka Giulio Prisco
http://cosmeng.org/index.php/Giulio_Prisco


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sat Jan 31 13:40:04 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:40:04 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Greed + Incompetence + A Belief in Market Efficiency =
	Disaster
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30901301817j5ce8b9e3yb4de15b703033a38@mail.gmail.com>
References: <ee50357e0901290733g362374b6q5d488c5bc4eb3165@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30901301817j5ce8b9e3yb4de15b703033a38@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20901310540u6b2000bi7562f76164288d79@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 3:17 AM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> 2009/1/30 BillK <pharos at gmail.com>:
> Please note that there are two possible meanings for "efficient market
> theory". The more common one in economics is the idea that the market
> prices a security to reflect all the information available, so that it
> is in general not possible for a speculator to beat the market unless
> he has special information:

Yes. In this sense, markets remain "efficient", in market terms, even
in the worst possible economic downturn. The fact is that efficiency
in this sense has nothing to do with wealth in any practical sense.
Markets are perfectly compatible, e.g., with free trade generating
poverty or famine, rather than wealth, in a given country. In fact,
"marketwide", this may be an efficient development.

> The article cited is talking about something quite different: the idea
> that if markets are left free from government interference that will
> always be for the better. This has come to be accepted as indisputable
> fact by neocons since the early 1980's, with Reagan and Thatcher its
> most influential proponents. The result has been a 25 year debt
> bubble, so that the US economy came to consist largely of retail and
> financial services. The bubble has now well and truly burst and it
> looks like there is no escaping years of relative poverty for both
> debtor and creditor nations ahead.

One wonders however *why* this should be the case, when this is a
purely financial outcome having nothing to do with available labour,
natural resources and industrial capacity. Here, a modicum of bold,
lateral re-thinking might be in order.

As Ezra Pound used to say, "the idea that a government cannot build
highways because there is not enough money is akin to the idea that it
cannot build them because there are not enough kilometers". Even
though I am far from persuades by their messianic trust in impersonal
mechanisms, at least radical libertarians try to think
"out-of-the-box" - something which cannot really be said, also thank
to their being conditioned by conservative vested interests, of most
governments.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sat Jan 31 13:46:00 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:46:00 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <7.0.1.0.2.20090130204745.023cb980@satx.rr.com>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130204745.023cb980@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20901310546u67c56885raeae6f728d1f68fc@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 3:49 AM, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
> It's very
> plausible that a vigorous free market would get you a *really good price* on
> a slave.

Even though it would not guarantee per se that a sufficient offer be
indefinitely maintained to keep the price down... :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sat Jan 31 13:51:38 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:51:38 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30901310159x40c20cbele30622007f10ce08@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
	<9FA9E8AE22014E9983BABB9320826058@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130224416.02340008@satx.rr.com>
	<0C97D8F32229491085C65EF2A17144ED@spike>
	<f21c22e30901302319v6021f65er55b736b675d274c0@mail.gmail.com>
	<49840141.5020801@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30901310159x40c20cbele30622007f10ce08@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20901310551h1043fa75uddb3bcfb942edcf8@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 10:59 AM, Stathis Papaioannou
<stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> The question is, where does the legitimacy of the capitalist's
> ownership of potentially productive resources come from? Note that the
> moral question is separate from the practical question: to show that
> it is useful to allow some people to acquire large fortunes is not
> necessarily the same as saying that it is fair.

This seems to me a too traditional and theoretical way to iterate such
an old debate.

The very preliminary issues, IMHO, are:
- is it useful to allow some people to acquire, or maintain, fortunes
which vastly exceed what might still have an impact on their
lifestyle?
- is it useful to allow some people to dispose of large fortunes which
they did not "acquire" in any socially, or even Darwinistically,
meaningful sense?

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Jan 31 14:47:43 2009
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 01:47:43 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <580930c20901310551h1043fa75uddb3bcfb942edcf8@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
	<9FA9E8AE22014E9983BABB9320826058@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130224416.02340008@satx.rr.com>
	<0C97D8F32229491085C65EF2A17144ED@spike>
	<f21c22e30901302319v6021f65er55b736b675d274c0@mail.gmail.com>
	<49840141.5020801@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30901310159x40c20cbele30622007f10ce08@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20901310551h1043fa75uddb3bcfb942edcf8@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <f21c22e30901310647t38bc3d4fr83652fe8c1a6ee38@mail.gmail.com>

2009/2/1 Stefano Vaj <stefano.vaj at gmail.com>:

> This seems to me a too traditional and theoretical way to iterate such
> an old debate.
>
> The very preliminary issues, IMHO, are:
> - is it useful to allow some people to acquire, or maintain, fortunes
> which vastly exceed what might still have an impact on their
> lifestyle?
> - is it useful to allow some people to dispose of large fortunes which
> they did not "acquire" in any socially, or even Darwinistically,
> meaningful sense?

You could argue that yes, it's useful, since without the lure of such
fortunes certain types of investment with potentially useful
consequences would not be made. But while utilitarianism may save
capitalism, it won't save libertarianism. For the libertarians would
argue that even if a socialist program could be shown to further the
common good, it would still be wrong.


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sat Jan 31 15:50:04 2009
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 16:50:04 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <f21c22e30901310647t38bc3d4fr83652fe8c1a6ee38@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<9FA9E8AE22014E9983BABB9320826058@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130224416.02340008@satx.rr.com>
	<0C97D8F32229491085C65EF2A17144ED@spike>
	<f21c22e30901302319v6021f65er55b736b675d274c0@mail.gmail.com>
	<49840141.5020801@mac.com>
	<f21c22e30901310159x40c20cbele30622007f10ce08@mail.gmail.com>
	<580930c20901310551h1043fa75uddb3bcfb942edcf8@mail.gmail.com>
	<f21c22e30901310647t38bc3d4fr83652fe8c1a6ee38@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <580930c20901310750g4de2c0fj2ba4d0fa4c78122f@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Jan 31, 2009 at 3:47 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> You could argue that yes, it's useful, since without the lure of such
> fortunes certain types of investment with potentially useful
> consequences would not be made.

... an argument which immediately opens the door to the question of
whether this is actually true or not, and whether there would not be
more effective ways to achieve the same results.

Parasitic, hereditary wealth in particular is recognised even by
free-marketeers to have hindered the economic progress during the
Ancien R?gime, e.g.

-- 
Stefano Vaj


From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Jan 31 17:29:30 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 12:29:30 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency.
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net><7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130204745.023cb980@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <9AC91F9BD96648BEB5CBC5363619FDF0@MyComputer>

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

> It's very plausible that a vigorous free market would get you a *really
> good price * on a slave.

Yes exactly, the free market could give you a very good price on a slave or
indeed any commodity; perhaps not absolute best theoretical price, but
pretty damn good. As for the morality, it's true that if most people believe
in the virtue of slavery then the free market won't be able to stop it, but
neither could democracy or anything else. Even the market can't produce
morality in abundance but it can lift more people out of poverty than
anything else.

Is the market efficient? No, nothing is, but on a scale of perfect
efficiency on one end and complete randomness on the other I think the true
economy would be closer to the efficiency end. People still study the Carnot
cycle even though it describes a perfect heat engine because there is only
one theory that describes a perfect one while there are an infinite number
of theories that describe inefficient heat engines.

It is often pointed out that the free market does not work as well as an
infinitely wise leader who always made brilliant and moral decisions. To
that criticism I can only say, yea you're right.

 John K Clark




From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jan 31 17:55:45 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 11:55:45 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency.
In-Reply-To: <9AC91F9BD96648BEB5CBC5363619FDF0@MyComputer>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130204745.023cb980@satx.rr.com>
	<9AC91F9BD96648BEB5CBC5363619FDF0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090131114446.022cdc98@satx.rr.com>

At 12:29 PM 1/31/2009 -0500, John K Clark wrote:

>It is often pointed out that the free market does not work as well as an
>infinitely wise leader who always made brilliant and moral decisions. To
>that criticism I can only say, yea you're right.

Is that still *often* pointed out, all these years after Stalin?

It is more often pointed out that a regulated market does not work as 
well as an infinitely wise unregulated market that always makes 
brilliant and moral decisions. To that criticism I can only say, I 
thought the US system of governance was notable for being founded on 
"checks and balances". Or doesn't that apply outside the strictly 
political/judicial sphere, and if not why not?

Damien Broderick





From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Jan 31 18:24:58 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:24:58 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Electronic Quantum Holography
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net><7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090130204745.023cb980@satx.rr.com>
	<9AC91F9BD96648BEB5CBC5363619FDF0@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <C488148B15394DF982FFAF165514CA26@MyComputer>

There is an interesting article at:

http://www.nature.com/nnano/journal/vaop/ncurrent/abs/nnano.2008.415.html

And a interesting quote by Hari Manoharan, one of the authors of the paper:

"How densely can you encode information on a computer chip? The assumption 
has been that basically the ultimate limit is when one atom represents one 
bit, and then there's no more room-in other words, that it's impossible to 
scale down below the level of atoms."

"But in this experiment we've stored some 35 bits per electron to encode 
each letter. And we write the letters so small that the bits that comprise 
them are subatomic in size. So one bit per atom is no longer the limit for 
information density. There's a grand new horizon below that, in the 
subatomic regime. Indeed, there's even more room at the bottom than
we ever imagined."

 John K Clark




From jonkc at bellsouth.net  Sat Jan 31 18:36:49 2009
From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John K Clark)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:36:49 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency.
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net><7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com><7.0.1.0.2.20090130204745.023cb980@satx.rr.com><9AC91F9BD96648BEB5CBC5363619FDF0@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090131114446.022cdc98@satx.rr.com>
Message-ID: <3B84BD63EFD94D3D99227C31A937C405@MyComputer>

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

> It is more often pointed out that a regulated market
> does not work as well as an infinitely wise unregulated 
> market that always makes brilliant and moral decisions.

Most free market people I know have some sense and don't claim it 
always does the right thing, they just claim it is more likely to do
so than a bunch of political hacks.

> I thought the US system of governance was notable for being
> founded on "checks and balances".

Oh it's known for all sorts of things, doesn't mean any of it actually 
works.

 John K Clark





From thespike at satx.rr.com  Sat Jan 31 20:22:54 2009
From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 14:22:54 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency.
In-Reply-To: <3B84BD63EFD94D3D99227C31A937C405@MyComputer>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130204745.023cb980@satx.rr.com>
	<9AC91F9BD96648BEB5CBC5363619FDF0@MyComputer>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090131114446.022cdc98@satx.rr.com>
	<3B84BD63EFD94D3D99227C31A937C405@MyComputer>
Message-ID: <7.0.1.0.2.20090131140258.023739b0@satx.rr.com>

At 01:36 PM 1/31/2009 -0500, John K Clark wrote:

>>It is more often pointed out that a regulated market
>>does not work as well as an infinitely wise unregulated market that 
>>always makes brilliant and moral decisions.
>
>Most free market people I know have some sense and don't claim it 
>always does the right thing, they just claim it is more likely to do 
>so than a bunch of political hacks.

John, most people I know who are mistrustful of the ideology of "free 
efficient markets" (a great idea in the abstract, not so much in 
Enron or Madoff practice) also have some sense, and seldom proclaim 
as an alternative some mythical "infinitely wise leader who always 
made brilliant and moral decisions" (Mugabe, perhaps?). Yes, there 
are political hacks, obviously--but other kinds of hacks as well, and 
worse. The world is replete with crooks, rule-bound idiots, scammers, 
manipulators, cardsharps, rogues, liars, thugs, hitmen for hire, 
dupes, the imprudent, the lazy, the self-sickening obese, the 
spendthrift, the deluded theorists, the short-sighted, the 
racketeers... It's a wonder the world's economies are not spinning 
down into ruin. Oh, wait.

Damien Broderick



From hkhenson at rogers.com  Sat Jan 31 20:03:49 2009
From: hkhenson at rogers.com (hkhenson)
Date: Sat, 31 Jan 2009 13:03:49 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
In-Reply-To: <ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>
References: <F9AA2E8C-1E25-4CC4-BA14-F5DB449C5301@thomasoliver.net>
	<7.0.1.0.2.20090130194540.02335e18@satx.rr.com>
	<9FA9E8AE22014E9983BABB9320826058@patrick4ezsk6z>
	<ACDACF6A3BF340E4B067A0FD77EA0794@spike>
Message-ID: <1233444336_19823@s6.cableone.net>

At 09:34 PM 1/30/2009, you wrote:


> > Subject: Re: [ExI] Belief in Market Efficiency
> >
> > From: "Damien Broderick" <thespike at satx.rr.com>
> >
> > > At 03:16 PM 1/30/2009 -0700, Thomas wrote contra regulation:
> > >
> > >>Free market traders with education, enlightenment and refinement
> > >>(civilized) have the advantage over savages.

It is downright interesting to look into where "enlightenment and 
refinement" came from.  Gregory Clark makes a really strong case that 
it was due to a vicious (if accidental) selection process.  20 
generations of simple but strong selection were enough to turn wild 
foxes into a very close approximation of domestic dogs.  Clark's 
evidence is that 20 generations of the ancestors of the people who 
brought about the industrial revolution were likewise selected.

> > > And, until 150 years ago, often owned them as chattels. (Or
> > were those not free market traders?)
>
>The slavers were not free market traders, for there was the threat of force
>of government to discourage the chattel from rising up and slaying their
>"owners."  True free markets assume every person equal and free.

Equal rights under law is one thing, but if there is one thing we do 
know it is that people are *not* equal in other directions.

Keith