[ExI] atheists de-baptize unbelievers

F. Crick dreamaswemay at gmail.com
Tue Jul 20 16:55:27 UTC 2010


Hi. I haven't introduced myself, yet, but eventually will, in a more
apropos thread. I'm not even sure if I'm using the email list
correctly, but if I'm not, I'm sure one of you fine people will be so
kind as to let me know.

On topic: it seems to me that agnosticism is a more realistic outlook.
To deny the existence of something that has, so far, been impossible
to prove or disprove seems just as foolish as to *assume* the
existence of a particular *kind* of that something that may or may not
be there. Assumptions are the mothers of all mistakes, and religion is
the mother of all assumptions, since it seeks to define conditions
after death.

In my opinion, it seems more logical to admit the lack of
understanding, and seek to rectify that deficit - not to say either
'we're right' or 'they're wrong'.


Sean


On 7/20/10, extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org
<extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org> wrote:
> 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: atheists de-baptize unbelievers: (darren shawn greer)
>    2. Re: atheists de-baptize unbelievers: (darren shawn greer)
>    3. Re: atheists de-baptize unbelievers: (Richard Litzkow)
>    4. Re: New IP thread (Ryan Rawson)
>    5. TransVision 2010: New confirmed speakers (Giulio Prisco)
>    6. Re: atheists de-baptize unbelievers (Ben Zaiboc)
>    7. Re: New IP thread (Rafal Smigrodzki)
>    8. Re: New IP thread (Ryan Rawson)
>    9. Sarah Palin (John Clark)
>   10. Re: Sarah Palin (Robert Picone)
>   11. Re: Sarah Palin (Robert Picone)
>   12. Re: New IP thread (Rafal Smigrodzki)
>   13. Re: atheists de-baptize unbelievers: (Stathis Papaioannou)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 22:13:51 -0400
> From: darren shawn greer <dgreer_68 at hotmail.com>
> To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] atheists de-baptize unbelievers:
> Message-ID: <COL112-W65B849486339F1493A9AB19DBE0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
>   Hey, I'm about to leave for a dance party (I don't get out much)! I'm
>> wondering about the ratio of virtous vrs. un-virtuous women who will
>> be there...
>
>
>
> If you find too many virtous ones, you can always tell them that Aristotle
> claimed that over-regulating desire through excessive virtue was a character
> flaw. Not sure if that'll get you anywhere but an odd look or a slap. Last
> resort maybe. Have fun.
>
>
>
> Darrern
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Per Ardua Ad Astra
> For more info on author Darren Greer visit
> http://darrenshawngreer.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
>
>> Date: Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:04:19 -0700
>> From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com
>> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> Subject: Re: [ExI] atheists de-baptize unbelievers:
>>
>> Damien wrote:
>> Proxy de-baptizing is not meant as a means of denying anyone anything
>> real, including immortality once science perfects it. It instead helps
>> detach the virtuous from mind-warping foolishness and exploitation,
>> should the person *choose* to accept it.
>> >>
>>
>> Okay, Damien, you made your point as a card-carrying atheist who
>> chases me around with a sharpened Occam's razor! lol But the virtous
>> can come in many forms and from a multitude of groups.
>>
>> Hey, I'm about to leave for a dance party (I don't get out much)! I'm
>> wondering about the ratio of virtous vrs. un-virtuous women who will
>> be there...
>>
>> John : )
>>
>>
>> On 7/17/10, Damien Broderick <thespike at satx.rr.com> wrote:
>> > On 7/17/2010 7:46 PM, John Grigg wrote:
>> >
>> >> The Mormon proxy baptisms are not meant as a means of granting anyone
>> >> immortality. It instead gives membership into God's church and
>> >> kingdom, should the person on the other side*choose* to accept it.
>> >
>> > Proxy de-baptizing is not meant as a means of denying anyone anything
>> > real, including immortality once science perfects it. It instead helps
>> > detach the virtuous from mind-warping foolishness and exploitation,
>> > should the person *choose* to accept it.
>> >
>> > Damien Broderick
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
>  		 	   		
> _________________________________________________________________
> Learn more ways to connect with your buddies now
> http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9734388
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100717/bed8652e/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 10:02:55 -0400
> From: darren shawn greer <dgreer_68 at hotmail.com>
> To: <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] atheists de-baptize unbelievers:
> Message-ID: <COL112-W9F4BEBE694BAC4CE96BFF9DBE0 at phx.gbl>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
>
> Will, very poignantly said. I'm a believer who has friends on both
>> sides of the chasm. But on Facebook I have many atheist "friends
>> (friends of friends)" who talk about nothing but their loathing of
>> Christianity & apparently all religion in general. It is like these
>> people have "no lives" and quite simply don't talk about other things
>> (like family, work, school, popular culture) , except their
>> anti-religion obsession. And the degree of arrogance, outright
>> crudeness, and countless straw man arguments just astounds me! I used
>> to think hardcore Evangelical Christian fundamentalists took the cake
>> on this stuff, but I now give the nod to their obnoxious opposition.
>>
>
>
>
> Well said. I've been wanting to say something similar myself, and have been
> a bit troubled by the amount of space spent on-line by fellow atheists
> ridiculing and making fun of the beliefs of others. I'm not a believer, but
> my parents are. They are devout Christians, with a quiet, simple faith. It
> has been a great stabilizer in their lives and has made them, as far as I'm
> concerned, happier, more balanced and productive people than they were
> before they believed. Because they respect my meta-physical/philosophical
> position as an atheist, I have been forced to respect theirs. I have learned
> over the years that to paint all Christians (Moslems, Parsis, Jains,
> Hindu's, Buddhists, whatever) with the same brush--judging them by the worst
> or most fanatic followers --is as misleading as saying all men are murderers
> because some do occasionally take lives.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Per Ardua Ad Astra
> For more info on author Darren Greer visit
> http://darrenshawngreer.blogspot.com
>
>
>
>
>
>> Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2010 03:10:53 -0700
>> From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com
>> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> Subject: Re: [ExI] atheists de-baptize unbelievers:
>>
>> Will Steinberg wrote:
>> Pretentious atheism ruins atheism. A smart, sensible atheist ignores
>> baptism, because it has zero meaning outside of its believers. Kagin
>> seems like he actually believes that children are wrongfully made to
>> become Christian when that drop of water touches their heads, and that
>> he has to undo the horror. Wouldn't it be more productive to
>> just...ignore the whole thing?
>>
>> I know smart people love to make belittling jokes, but sometimes too
>> much masturbating of the ego actually validates the other side. Every
>> "A for Atheist" shirt only pounds home the idea of Faith, Symbol,
>> Faith!
>> >>>
>>
>> Will, very poignantly said. I'm a believer who has friends on both
>> sides of the chasm. But on Facebook I have many atheist "friends
>> (friends of friends)" who talk about nothing but their loathing of
>> Christianity & apparently all religion in general. It is like these
>> people have "no lives" and quite simply don't talk about other things
>> (like family, work, school, popular culture) , except their
>> anti-religion obsession. And the degree of arrogance, outright
>> crudeness, and countless straw man arguments just astounds me! I used
>> to think hardcore Evangelical Christian fundamentalists took the cake
>> on this stuff, but I now give the nod to their obnoxious opposition.
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>> On 7/18/10, Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com> wrote:
>> > Agree with Will.
>> >
>> > Everyone should be free to waste their time and energy as they please,
>> > provided they don't harm others. Myself, I would join a sport fan club
>> > rather than New Atheist fundamentalists.
>> >
>> > --
>> > Giulio Prisco
>> > giulio at gmail.com
>> > (39)3387219799
>> >
>> > On Jul 18, 2010 6:54 AM, "Will Steinberg" <steinberg.will at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > Pretentious atheism ruins atheism. A smart, sensible atheist ignores
>> > baptism, because it has zero meaning outside of its believers. Kagin
>> > seems
>> > like he actually believes that children are wrongfully made to *become
>> > Christian* when that drop of water touches their heads, and that he has
>> > to
>> > undo the horror. Wouldn't it be more productive to just...ignore the
>> > whole
>> > thing?
>> >
>> > I know smart people love to make belittling jokes, but sometimes too
>> > much
>> > masturbating of the ego actually validates the other side. Every "A for
>> > Atheist" shirt only pounds home the idea of Faith, Symbol, Faith!
>> >
>> > I fear for atheism when its harbingers are empathy-less prats...
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > 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
>
>  		 	   		
> _________________________________________________________________
> Game on: Challenge friends to great games on Messenger
> http://go.microsoft.com/?linkid=9734387
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100718/5ec3cb38/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 17:40:42 +1000
> From: Richard Litzkow <rlitzkow at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] atheists de-baptize unbelievers:
> Message-ID:
> 	<AANLkTins8wRtfcfhXKaAweck03Bn_Ru1WKxMSZPNsHLx at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 'What else floats on water' is a quote from Monty Python (Monty Python and
> the Holy Grail) from the Witch Hunting sketch.
> http://www.sacred-texts.com/neu/mphg/mphg.htm
>
> As regards the original post; as long as the participants don't take their
> event seriously I think that a little mockery is only fair. We let religious
> blow hards make statements about how homosexuals, Jews and Muslims 'caused'
> Hurricane Katrina and the Indonesian tsunami, all without any trace of
> irony, then a group of atheists de-baptising people is all in good fun.
>
> I don't even think that this;
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jan/06/religion-atheism is
> going too far either.
>
> - Richard Litzkow
> --
> "For what purpose humanity is there should not even concern us: why you are
> there, that you should ask yourself: and if you have no ready answer, then
> set yourself goals, high and noble goals, and perish in pursuit of them! I
> know of no better life purpose than to perish in attempting the great and
> the impossible..." Nietzsche
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100719/d956d796/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 01:17:05 -0700
> From: Ryan Rawson <ryanobjc at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] New IP thread
> Message-ID:
> 	<AANLkTimUezfBnP0DjEACxXWeCF32W4SeChi-ag47usSd at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> I'm not really sure I buy the analogy in the PS - memory protections
> and private thoughts are really not the same as "IP" which is
> information people wish to make public and shared with others.
>
> I also think it's an supposition that strong IP leads to more
> efficient outcomes. Efficient comes in various flavors too, since an
> efficient economy might not have creative solutions and innovations -
> does the iPod belong in an efficient economy?
>
> Strong IP has become a threat to those who make things happen and
> encourages IP trolls which are a pretty sick twisted outcome of the
> current system (and would be more prevalent in stronger IP regimes).
> Besides which, no new invention really comes out of thin air, and it
> can be a minefield for independent creators to be in the business of
> IP creation.  Be it copyright claims, patent threats, or just vague
> legal threats, creation ends up being a big-company thing only.
>
> I found Free Culture particularly enlightening - lessig has thought
> about this aspect fairly well I think.
>
> -ryan
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 12:56 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki
> <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:49 AM, Damien Sullivan
>> <phoenix at ugcs.caltech.edu> wrote:
>>> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 02:12:48PM -0400, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
>>>
>>>> ? ?A socially progressive solution would be of course to have unlimited
>>>> ? ?duration of universally binding patent protection on all new drugs,
>>>> ? ?without any price restrictions imposed by illegitimate third parties
>>>> ? ?(governments). In this way inventors would have the incentive and the
>>>
>>> No governments, no patents.
>>>
>>> Takes the power of a government to tell me I can't copy a book I own, or
>>> imitate a machine or drug I saw in public.
>>
>> ### Define "government".
>>
>> The way I see it, it is possible to have effective IP laws without
>> government. In fact, any law content can be generated by
>> non-governmental methods, aside from laws that constitute the
>> government itself. It's a question of what a sufficient number of
>> people believe is right, not an issue of the methods/sources of
>> generating laws. Where there is a human desire, there is a way of
>> making it into law - and the desire to have strong IP protection may
>> lead to highly efficient outcomes, despite its current lack of
>> popularity.
>>
>> I can only advise to try to approach the problem of IP not from a
>> first-person perspective but to start with a comparative analysis of
>> efficiency of various hypothetical laws, given a range of plausible
>> assumptions about the properties of societies where these laws could
>> exist. From this exercise you might make guesses about the
>> laws (and supporting moral beliefs as well as technological
>> constraints) that are efficient, and therefore desirable. Once you
>> have that, ask what kind of legal methodology and what kind of social
>> organization would be needed to support such laws.
>>
>> I do believe that a pluralistic, non-governed society consisting of
>> entities still recognizably human would be capable of generating
>> strong IP protection, and that this would be highly efficient. For a
>> vision of a pluralistic society with extremely strong, privately
>> provided IP laws see John C. Wright's "Golden Age" series.
>>
>> Rafal
>>
>> P.S. An interesting thought occurred to me - compare a society where
>> all thoughts of every individual are open to control by other
>> individuals (unless specifically protected from external control), vs.
>> a society where all individual thoughts are protected from other
>> individuals (unless specifically excluded from protection). Draw
>> parallels with operating systems that allow any program to execute any
>> operations on the code of another program, unless specifically
>> proscribed, vs. systems that generally prevent programs from modifying
>> each other, unless specifically allowed. Which operating system is
>> more robust? This is a good starting point to thinking about the deep
>> underpinnings of IP law.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 18:15:13 +0200
> From: Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com>
> To: transvisioncc at googlegroups.com,
> 	euro-transhumanists at googlegroups.com,	ExI chat list
> 	<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>,	extrobritannia at yahoogroups.com,
> 	transfigurism at googlegroups.com,	cosmic-engineers at googlegroups.com,
> 	turingchurch at googlegroups.com
> Subject: [ExI] TransVision 2010: New confirmed speakers
> Message-ID:
> 	<AANLkTikq6KrgKPioLtn3nBkhNs4_DTMDuRz6shVduWgP at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
>
> TransVision 2010: New confirmed speakers
> http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/2010/07/19/transvision-2010-new-confirmed-speakers/
>
> The following speakers will give talks at TransVision 2010, which
> brings the number of confirmed speakers to 24. Other speakers will be
> announced in a few days.
>
> Roberto Guerra: writer and video poet. His published works include,
> among other writings, ?Marinetti e il Duemila? (in AA.VV. ?Divenire 3
> Futurismo? edited by AIT, 2009, Sestante Edizioni) and  ?Moana Lisa
> Cyberpunk? (Edizioni Diversa Sintonia, 2010). He participated in ?The
> Scientist International Videoart Festival? organized by Ferrara
> Video&Arte. In 2009 he organized, with Graziano Cecchini ?Futurismo
> 100 live?, dedicated to 100 years of Futurism. Since 2010 he is the
> coordinator of the Laboratory of Futurist Literature of AIT (Italian
> Transhumanist Association).
>
> Alex Lightman is the Executive Director of Humanity+ (formerly the
> World Transhumanist Association), author of over 800,000 words mainly
> about science, technology, science fiction, and the future including
> Brave New Unwired World: The Digital Big Bang and the Infinite
> Internet. He is a graduate of MIT and attended graduate school at MIT
> and Harvard. He completed Army Airborne paratrooper training, Navy
> Cold Weather Survival School, and over 25 road races including six
> marathons in the last 18 months. He got support from 40 countries for
> his government policy recommendations for IPv6.
>
> Marta Rossi graduated (B.A.) in Philosophy of Mind and Languages from
> San Raffaele University (Milan) with a dissertation on self-reference.
> She received her M.A. from the same institution with a final
> dissertation on the ontology of functionalism and its consequences in
> ethics and social theory. Her research are focused on mind-body
> relations, philosophical and scientific accounts of consciousness and
> the link between Singularity and social changes. Currently a Ph.D.
> Candidate in Philosophy and Cognitive Sciences, she has been working @
> iLabs since 2006, where she is Strategic Partnership Manager, leading
> the management of projects in ethics, social and political theory.
>
> Jacopo Tagliabue graduated (B.A.) in Philosophy of Mind and Languages
> from San Raffaele University (Milan) with a dissertation on formal
> ontology. He received his M.A. from the same institution with a final
> dissertation on scientific explanations in complex systems. He studied
> microeconomics, statistics and complexity theory in renowned
> international institutions (London School of Economics, New York
> University, Santa Fe Institute) and he is currently a Ph.D. Candidate
> in Philosophy and Cognitive Sciences. He has been working @ iLabs
> since 2006, where he is now Chief Scientist for Qualitative Modelling.
>
> Francesco Verso is an Italian SF writer (tough he defines his genre as
> ?future fiction? from a definition of Anthony Burgess for A Clockwork
> Orange). He follows transhumanism since many years because its themes
> are strictly connected to the ones of his novels. Books: Antidoti
> umani ? (Human Antidotes) ? short-listed for the Urania Mondadori 2004
> Award, deals with human augmentation & sensorial prosthetis. e-Doll ?
> winner of the Urania Mondadori 2008 Award ? is about the relationship
> between Maya, a moscow teenager, and Angel, an highly sofisticated
> replicant  who is employed in the business of sex. The novel talks
> about the birth of consciousness and analyses aspects of human
> sexuality.
>
> TransVision 2010 is a global transhumanist conference and community
> convention, organized by several transhumanist activists, groups and
> organizations, under the executive leadership of the Italian
> Transhumanist Association (AIT) and with the collaboration of an
> Advisory Board. The event will take place on October 22, 23 and 24,
> 2010 in Milan, Italy with many options for remote online access.
>
> Register now
>
> to take advantage of our special early Bird rates, post links to
> Twitter, your blogs and websites, and add your name to the TransVision
> 2010 Facebook page.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 10:43:49 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Ben Zaiboc <bbenzai at yahoo.com>
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: Re: [ExI] atheists de-baptize unbelievers
> Message-ID: <407447.82054.qm at web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
>
> Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> asked:
>>
>> ps: "What else floats on water?"
>>
>
> Uhhh, very small stones? A duck? ...
>
> :>
>
> Ben Zaiboc
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 7
> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:30:12 -0700
> From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] New IP thread
> Message-ID:
> 	<AANLkTimEWdytBk-3dZUbP509w5yaDiQK6rL-UxOUAugx at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Ryan Rawson <ryanobjc at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm not really sure I buy the analogy in the PS - memory protections
>> and private thoughts are really not the same as "IP" which is
>> information people wish to make public and shared with others.
>
> ### I did not draw an analogy between memory protection and IP. You
> may review that I suggested this exercise as a way of improving one's
> understanding of the relationship between some engineering principles
> (applicable to both operating systems and legal systems) and their
> effects on efficiency. Instead of offering opinions about analogies to
> IP, I invite you to answer which approach to memory protection is
> efficient, as measured by the likelihood of achieving goals inherent
> in the software or human entities under consideration. This exercise
> is useful in beginning a deliberation which eventually may lead you a
> dispassionate analysis of IP law.
> --------------------------------
>>
>> I also think it's an supposition that strong IP leads to more
>> efficient outcomes. Efficient comes in various flavors too, since an
>> efficient economy might not have creative solutions and innovations -
>> does the iPod belong in an efficient economy?
>
> ### The general meaning of efficiency is the degree of achievement of
> goals, given available resources. Your paragraph above seems to be
> bereft of meaning in our context.
>
> ------------------------------
>>
>> Strong IP has become a threat to those who make things happen and
>> encourages IP trolls which are a pretty sick twisted outcome of the
>> current system (and would be more prevalent in stronger IP regimes).
>> Besides which, no new invention really comes out of thin air, and it
>> can be a minefield for independent creators to be in the business of
>> IP creation. ?Be it copyright claims, patent threats, or just vague
>> legal threats, creation ends up being a big-company thing only.
>>
>
> ### You did not go through the exercise of thinking about efficiency
> in simple systems. It appears you are providing verbal justifications
> for an emotionally held position, invoking mythical creatures, such as
> trolls. I can assure you from my own experience that mainly thanks to
> IP it is possible to generate innovation in a small company. Do lay
> out an analysis from deeper principles, starting with efficiency in
> simple systems, while trying to lay aside your feelings.
>
> FYI, I used to oppose IP but once I started looking at the issue as a
> strictly engineering problem involving societal efficiency over long
> periods of time (rather than personal annoyance at being prevented
> from pirating movies), I changed my mind - and my feelings followed.
>
> Rafal
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 17:03:05 -0700
> From: Ryan Rawson <ryanobjc at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] New IP thread
> Message-ID:
> 	<AANLkTimw_eEIQnEf7vpt9T0loR_oi1y1rTFR-nGT7wwK at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 3:30 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki
> <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 1:17 AM, Ryan Rawson <ryanobjc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> I'm not really sure I buy the analogy in the PS - memory protections
>>> and private thoughts are really not the same as "IP" which is
>>> information people wish to make public and shared with others.
>>
>> ### I did not draw an analogy between memory protection and IP. You
>> may review that I suggested this exercise as a way of improving one's
>> understanding of the relationship between some engineering principles
>> (applicable to both operating systems and legal systems) and their
>> effects on efficiency. Instead of offering opinions about analogies to
>> IP, I invite you to answer which approach to memory protection is
>> efficient, as measured by the likelihood of achieving goals inherent
>> in the software or human entities under consideration. This exercise
>> is useful in beginning a deliberation which eventually may lead you a
>> dispassionate analysis of IP law.
>> --------------------------------
>>>
>>> I also think it's an supposition that strong IP leads to more
>>> efficient outcomes. Efficient comes in various flavors too, since an
>>> efficient economy might not have creative solutions and innovations -
>>> does the iPod belong in an efficient economy?
>>
>> ### The general meaning of efficiency is the degree of achievement of
>> goals, given available resources. Your paragraph above seems to be
>> bereft of meaning in our context.
>
> But what are the goals?  You have one set of goals, maybe I have
> another? Which are valid? Your position is that strong IP may create
> efficient outcomes (whatever "outcomes" means), but I am saying that
> while strong IP may create YOUR desirable outcomes, I say that overly
> strong IP causes loss of efficiency in other areas, not to mention
> absurd outcomes like patent "trolls" and weird lawsuits and takedowns
> of children's birthday videos.  These are not mythical outcomes, they
> are very real and happen on a daily basis in the US and other
> countries.
>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>>>
>>> Strong IP has become a threat to those who make things happen and
>>> encourages IP trolls which are a pretty sick twisted outcome of the
>>> current system (and would be more prevalent in stronger IP regimes).
>>> Besides which, no new invention really comes out of thin air, and it
>>> can be a minefield for independent creators to be in the business of
>>> IP creation. ?Be it copyright claims, patent threats, or just vague
>>> legal threats, creation ends up being a big-company thing only.
>>>
>>
>> ### You did not go through the exercise of thinking about efficiency
>> in simple systems. It appears you are providing verbal justifications
>> for an emotionally held position, invoking mythical creatures, such as
>> trolls. I can assure you from my own experience that mainly thanks to
>> IP it is possible to generate innovation in a small company. Do lay
>> out an analysis from deeper principles, starting with efficiency in
>> simple systems, while trying to lay aside your feelings.
>
> Ignoring your insults, I would claim that getting a casual
> lay-understanding of a simple system does not help in fully analyzing
> complex systems. In engineering areas perhaps understanding basic
> mechanical principles leads to greater understanding, but complex
> socio-economic interactions challenge simple approaches - after all
> micro and macro economics are not taught together and use different
> principles to achieve their understandings.
>
>>
>> FYI, I used to oppose IP but once I started looking at the issue as a
>> strictly engineering problem involving societal efficiency over long
>> periods of time (rather than personal annoyance at being prevented
>> from pirating movies), I changed my mind - and my feelings followed.
>
> Well I'm glad you've come to a place of understanding with your piracy
> tendencies, but I was really talking about things like software
> patents on obvious things, over-reaching copyright (which originally
> was a balancing deal) and remix rights.  Never forget that patents and
> copyrights are NOT natural rights, and the government gives those
> rights to individuals (and companies) and takes on the enforcement
> arbitration in return for something.  That being the timely return of
> inventions, books, movies, etc to the public domain so that future
> generations can take the works of "the greats" and build on it.
>
>
>
>>
>> Rafal
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 9
> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 00:43:03 -0400
> From: John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: [ExI] Sarah Palin
> Message-ID: <A1F6F7A2-6D30-4BCB-A14C-057F6608C8C9 at bellsouth.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Although it embarrasses me to admit it, I actually find myself agreeing with
> Sarah Palin on something. She said building a Mosque right next to Ground
> Zero in New York was a "unnecessary provocation". I never thought I'd say
> this but I think she's correct; well,... I guess even a stopped clock is
> right twice a day and it is a bit rude to build a monument glorifying the
> very same fascist organization responsible for the 911 terror attacks on the
> same ground where the World Trade Center once stood before it was destroyed
> by a moronic religious philosophy. If they want to celebrate that evil
> moronic philosophy I think another place, any other place, might be more
> appropriate. It would be like building a Neo-Nazi headquarters in the middle
> of Auschwitz. It's bad taste and just isn't polite.
>
>   John K Clark
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20100720/f0d32f1a/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 10
> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 23:55:40 -0700
> From: Robert Picone <rpicone at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Sarah Palin
> Message-ID:
> 	<AANLkTinUnDQr1vqbeAbGiAfzHAQSLXHcrB6Qgez6QtRs at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Previous message was sent blank, my apologies.  Anyway, no, not the same
> fascists, these particular fascists had been in the area, blocks away, the
> entire time, they have the support of the community, and represent a group
> that while it has a dillusion or two in common with a handful of murderers,
> aren't said murderers and don't support them in any way.  It's like a group
> of people who couldn't get into art school renting
> an apartment near Auschwitz.
>
> If the locals support it, who is anyone to tell them what they can't have in
> their community?  Also:  Seems like a bit of an odd topic for this list.
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Robert Picone <rpicone at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 2010/7/19 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>
>>
>>> Although it embarrasses me to admit it, I actually find myself agreeing
>>> with Sarah Palin on something. She said building a Mosque right next to
>>> Ground Zero in New York was a "unnecessary provocation". I never thought
>>> I'd
>>> say this but I think she's correct; well,... I guess even a stopped clock
>>> is
>>> right twice a day and it is a bit rude to build a monument glorifying the
>>> very same fascist organization responsible for the 911 terror attacks on
>>> the
>>> same ground where the World Trade Center once stood before it was
>>> destroyed
>>> by a moronic religious philosophy. If they want to celebrate that evil
>>> moronic philosophy I think another place, any other place, might be more
>>> appropriate. It would be like building a Neo-Nazi headquarters in the
>>> middle
>>> of Auschwitz. It's bad taste and just isn't polite.
>>> *
>>> *
>>>   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/20100719/877acea0/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 11
> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2010 23:50:18 -0700
> From: Robert Picone <rpicone at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Sarah Palin
> Message-ID:
> 	<AANLkTikeBt1Dpv_4GCOnkDtLg1vk_aOW-tuf4-ejrKMA at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 2010/7/19 John Clark <jonkc at bellsouth.net>
>
>> Although it embarrasses me to admit it, I actually find myself agreeing
>> with Sarah Palin on something. She said building a Mosque right next to
>> Ground Zero in New York was a "unnecessary provocation". I never thought
>> I'd
>> say this but I think she's correct; well,... I guess even a stopped clock
>> is
>> right twice a day and it is a bit rude to build a monument glorifying the
>> very same fascist organization responsible for the 911 terror attacks on
>> the
>> same ground where the World Trade Center once stood before it was
>> destroyed
>> by a moronic religious philosophy. If they want to celebrate that evil
>> moronic philosophy I think another place, any other place, might be more
>> appropriate. It would be like building a Neo-Nazi headquarters in the
>> middle
>> of Auschwitz. It's bad taste and just isn't polite.
>> *
>> *
>>   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/20100719/79faed8a/attachment-0001.html>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 12
> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 05:23:35 -0400
> From: Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] New IP thread
> Message-ID:
> 	<AANLkTikplrmihs6DP6pqIyjW5KswM9OTQH1ys_CvZYm5 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Mon, Jul 19, 2010 at 8:03 PM, Ryan Rawson <ryanobjc at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> ### The general meaning of efficiency is the degree of achievement of
>>> goals, given available resources. Your paragraph above seems to be
>>> bereft of meaning in our context.
>>
>> But what are the goals? ?You have one set of goals, maybe I have
>> another? Which are valid? Your position is that strong IP may create
>> efficient outcomes (whatever "outcomes" means), but I am saying that
>> while strong IP may create YOUR desirable outcomes, I say that overly
>> strong IP causes loss of efficiency in other areas, not to mention
>> absurd outcomes like patent "trolls" and weird lawsuits and takedowns
>> of children's birthday videos. ?These are not mythical outcomes, they
>> are very real and happen on a daily basis in the US and other
>> countries.
>>
> ### The notion of efficiency does not pertain to the content of goals,
> only to the degree to which they are satisfied. You may want to peruse
> some of the common definitions of efficiency as used in economics. It
> is not a part of our discussion (yet) to make normative statements
> about the relative validity of goals espoused by diverse entities. To
> understand our daily life, you first need to take many inferential
> steps away from it, so as to return where you started with your eyes
> wide open. At the elementary level we are on, simple exercises devoid
> of emotional content are needed first, before tackling potentially
> confusing issues.
>
> I notice you persist in using emotional imagery. "Takedowns of
> children's birthday videos" - what could be a better way to sabotage a
> rational mind? I never progressed beyond superficialities until I
> engaged in analytical exercises untainted by emotions. Neither will
> you.
>
> ------------------------------
>> Ignoring your insults, I would claim that getting a casual
>> lay-understanding of a simple system does not help in fully analyzing
>> complex systems. In engineering areas perhaps understanding basic
>> mechanical principles leads to greater understanding, but complex
>> socio-economic interactions challenge simple approaches - after all
>> micro and macro economics are not taught together and use different
>> principles to achieve their understandings.
>
> ### Are you saying you can understand complex systems without first
> being able to analyze simple analogues? That you feel empowered to
> make insightful statements about the real world without first taking
> it apart in your mind?
>
> -------------------------
>
>> Well I'm glad you've come to a place of understanding with your piracy
>> tendencies, but I was really talking about things like software
>> patents on obvious things, over-reaching copyright (which originally
>> was a balancing deal) and remix rights. ?Never forget that patents and
>> copyrights are NOT natural rights, and the government gives those
>> rights to individuals (and companies) and takes on the enforcement
>> arbitration in return for something. ?That being the timely return of
>> inventions, books, movies, etc to the public domain so that future
>> generations can take the works of "the greats" and build on it.
>>
> ### I do not recognize "natural rights" as a useful category. Rights
> are efficient, or not, and that is what matters.
>
> If a "thing" is obvious, it cannot be legally patented. If there is a
> patent on an obvious invention, the patent itself goes against IP law.
> In a previous post you explicitly came out against "strong IP" (which
> I assume pertains to what I postulated in the initial post of this
> thread), now you claim you are against patents that violate current
> patent law, and some peripheral issues like copyright and remix
> rights.
>
> What is it then that you oppose?
>
> Rafal
>
> PS. Let me restate my postulates: In order to achieve maximum
> efficiency, all thoughts should enjoy very high levels of protection
> against unauthorized intrusions, such as overwriting, editing, and
> copying. This also pertains to agreements between entities, which are
> overt expressions of thoughts, and are binding on the entities. Based
> on my analyses of both simple models and observations of actual
> societies, a pluralist society which protects each individual's
> thoughts is likely to be able to generate more numerous, diverse and
> useful ideas, compared to societies that do not afford such
> protections to thoughts. Current IP law is a partial embodiment of
> this notion, despite being limited by technological and other
> deficiencies.
>
> By a high level of protection I mean, among others, unlimited in time
> protection from any unauthorized copying whatsoever, with legal
> recourse available to extract both restorative and punitive damages.
> Obviously, such damages cannot be imposed on independent reinvention.
>
> Is this what you are against?
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Tue, 20 Jul 2010 20:21:38 +1000
> From: Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list <extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: Re: [ExI] atheists de-baptize unbelievers:
> Message-ID:
> 	<AANLkTikT6wepwOta2bzqafXIfo1mGOqJFsXIhv93meNO at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> 2010/7/19 darren shawn greer <dgreer_68 at hotmail.com>
>
>> Well said. I've been wanting to say something similar myself, and have
>> been a bit troubled by the amount of space spent on-line by fellow
>> atheists?ridiculing and making fun of the beliefs of others. I'm not a
>> believer, but my parents are. They are devout Christians, with a quiet,
>> simple?faith. It has been a great stabilizer in their lives and has made
>> them, as far as I'm concerned, happier, more balanced and
>> productive?people than they were before they believed. Because they
>> respect my meta-physical/philosophical position as an atheist, I have been
>> forced to respect theirs. I have learned over the years that to paint all
>> Christians (Moslems, Parsis, Jains,?Hindu's, Buddhists, whatever) with the
>> same brush--judging them by the worst or most fanatic followers --is as
>> misleading as saying all men are murderers because some do occasionally
>> take lives.
>
> They're not all bad but they're still wrong. Truth is not a matter of
> utility: if the belief in a flat Earth could be shown to have a
> calming, positive influence on the life of the believer it is no less
> a false belief for that. The flat-earthers are generally harmless folk
> and perhaps we should leave them alone, but if they had vast amounts
> of money and influence and went about successfully turning people to
> their view they should be vigorously opposed.
>
>
> --
> Stathis Papaioannou
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
> End of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 82, Issue 31
> ********************************************
>



More information about the extropy-chat mailing list