From spike66 at att.net Fri Oct 1 00:31:53 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 17:31:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] is it a miracle? Message-ID: <6B1C346700BF4658B70000866EDEDF80@spike> Occasionally Jesus or the Virgin Mary will appear on a piece of toast, which then sells on eBay for thousands. That line of business is completely wrecked because of this guy. Now if the savior of mankind appears on a piece of toast, the faithful can never know if it is a miracle or just some yahoo with a Jesus toaster: http://video.foxnews.com/v/4355276/introducing-the-jesus-toaster/?playlist_i d=86856 You know what is coming next, ja? A Virgin Mary toaster and a Barack Obama toaster. Now why couldn't you or I think of something like that? We could be rich and famous. You can be famous, I will do the rich. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Oct 1 00:59:17 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 20:59:17 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Newly discovered planet may be first truly habitable exoplanet! In-Reply-To: <823098.27781.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <823098.27781.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: 2010/9/30 Dan : > Why are we possibly doomed? > > Also, I think it's pretty cool that there appears to be a solar system there > fairly like ours. It might mean that solar systems similar to ours are > fairly common. Does this means life and intelligent life are fairly common? > I don't know. Life my be common. Intelligent life is rare even on Earth. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Fri Oct 1 01:09:33 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 18:09:33 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] U.S. deeply imperiled due to it's massive debt In-Reply-To: <65606.72539.qm@web65609.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <76742.44929.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <65606.72539.qm@web65609.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <877014.6607.qm@web65604.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Not?to shine?some sun on everybody's doom and gloom parade but according to "the Economist", the U.S. is far from the top of the list of countries in debt trouble. http://www.economist.com/blogs/buttonwood/2010/02/debt_crisis_-_how_countries_rank ?Stuart LaForge "Old men read the lesson in the setting sun. Beat the cymbal and sing in this life, or wail away the hours fearing death. Their choice is their fortune." - I Ching From agrimes at speakeasy.net Fri Oct 1 03:45:59 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Thu, 30 Sep 2010 23:45:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Top N things I might like to be. (repost) Message-ID: <4CA55977.9010701@speakeasy.net> I don't know what happened, my local software says I sent this last night (to exi-chat), but it hasn't reflected back or been recorded in the list archives. Possible moderator action? Re-sending and cross-posting to an unmoderated list. ######################################## [Place standard intro here]. 1. The Bad Wolf. Not just the curves, being able to destroy your enemies, protect your allies, and re-align the entire time-space continuum at a whim... NICE. Probably isn't possible. 2a (tie) Alternate physicality the crazy side of my mind has been obsessed with for many long years. -- Someone once called the idea a "gestalt being", basically a bunch of fairly humanoid beings merged together either completely or as you please. Semi-independent consciousness, really weirds out the sane side of my mind, never the less tied for #2. 2b (tie) Absurd hedonistic body #5. (includes all features of 3.) 3. Nano-cyborg body, complete head-toe/skin-marrow re-design, still basically humanoid. Includes seamless integration with the very best cybernetics anyone could possibly dream up, and able to morph into either #2 option at will. (first sane entry on this list). 4. Still basically human but life-extended to have more time to work on #3. 5. Human and thankful he was able to avoid the brain-control chip that the government looks like it's getting ready to force on everybody come ten to fifteen years.. =( -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From giulio at gmail.com Fri Oct 1 18:42:12 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 20:42:12 +0200 Subject: [ExI] =?windows-1252?q?TransVision_2010_=96_New_confirmed_speaker?= =?windows-1252?q?s?= Message-ID: TransVision 2010 ? New confirmed speakers http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/2010/10/01/transvision-2010-%E2%80%93-new-confirmed-speakers-2/ The following speakers will give talks at TransVision 2010, which brings the number of confirmed speakers to 37 (unfortunately Jamais Cascio will not be able to be with us). Other speakers will be announced in a few days. Graziano Cecchini is an Italian artist and activist, one of the principal exponents of the Futurist avant-garde. He is well known for his unscheduled ?surprise? performances in crowded landmarks, like dumping a bottle of dye into the famed Trevi Fountain in Rome, turning the waters blood-red for a day. This performance has been covered by the New York Times and the ?Trespass: Uncommissioned Public Art? catalogue. Dr Suzanne Gildert is currently working as an Experimental Physicist at D-Wave Systems, Inc. She is involved in the design and testing of large scale superconducting processors for Quantum Computing Applications. Suzanne obtained her PhD and MSci degree from The University of Birmingham UK, focusing on the areas of experimental quantum device physics and superconductivity. Danila Medvedev is a Russian futurologist (specializing in the science and future of Russia), a politician and a member of coordination council of the Russian Transhumanistic Movement. He is also one of founders and the general director of KrioRus (since May, 2005), the first cryonics company outside of the United States. Since August 2008 he works as a Chief Planning Officer and a Vice-President of the ?Science for Life Extension? Foundation in Moscow, Russia. See the Interview with Danila Medvedev by Sky News. Valerija Pride is a Transhumanist and President of KrioRus, the first cryonics company outside of the United States, whose recent scientific work includes work on the very promising Human Aging System Diagram project. Vitaliano Teti is associated with the Department of Audio Visual Production of the University of Ferrara. Since 4 years he is the Art Director of the international video art festival ?The Scientist?, an emerging festival in the Italian video art scene. An expert in film and video theories, language and techniques, Teti is also a director and producer of creative documentaries and independent films. 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 http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/registration/ post links to Twitter, your blogs and websites, and add your name to the TransVision 2010 Facebook page. From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Fri Oct 1 20:43:14 2010 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 21:43:14 +0100 (BST) Subject: [ExI] End of time? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <952080.36439.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Spike wrote:" Perhaps you have heard of our state's 19 billion dollar deficit?? And that the budget still hasn't passed, and is over two months overdue?? And that they are not even making much progress?? What do we do now, coach?" Time to engage my armchair coaching mode - Tom's four solutions to California's deficit! (in ascending order of workability) 1) Slash EVERYTHING and attempt a minarchist's dream inside of twelve months! Redesign education so as to avoid classroom time and do all their work in a computer or in student-led groups! Close all state-subsidised hospitals! Who needs road maintenance - make every road support itself by tolls! Unlikely to work, as general redesign of a government's support of things usually requires years of planning and many unfortunate casualties along the way. Still, Canada managed some fairly vicious cuts in the 90s and survived. Also, unlikely to pass the legislative bodies without serious arm-twisting (which is better deployed on plan 4) 2) Play a game of bankruptcy chicken with the Federal government. Threaten to declare bankruptcy, and see if either the Fed weakens and bails you out, or alternatively go through with it and have an interesting social experiment in what happens in the worst case scenario for a US state. Hey, the Weimar republic eventually recovered following their hyperinflation crisis and subsequent crash. 3) Offer to sell land back to mexico - hey, it was Mexico's until the mid-19th century, so the federal government shouldn't complain. In between Carlos Slim and the border gangs there's enough money available to fetch a good price. If you get really desperate, suggest 99 year leases to Russia or China. 4) Milk Uncle Sam the traditional way. California is full of hackers, paparazzo journalists and private investigators right? (Well, that's the way the media portrays it to the rest of the world.) Deploy them en masse to dig up the dirt on every member of the House Ways and Means committee. These bozos influence ludicrous pork-barrel spending every year, so if they decide to pass the "Upgrading California's Infrastructure" measures which spends zillions on employing every unemployed person in Cali to build roads, bridges, etc. no-one will suspect a thing. The resulting employment boom will kickstart California's economy. In fact, why stop there? Why not persuade enough lawmakers to pass the "NASA appropriations (advancing America)" Bill which decides to advance US technology by throwing extra billions at Lockheed and its satellite-building contractors. It may not be the best spend of US taxpayers money, but if it gets highly experienced ex-satellite engineers back on the payroll for a couple of years I for one would say it is well worth the money. Tom From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Fri Oct 1 14:29:03 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 11:29:03 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Top N things I might like to be. (repost) In-Reply-To: <4CA55977.9010701@speakeasy.net> References: <4CA55977.9010701@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: Alan wrote: "2a (tie) Alternate physicality the crazy side of my mind has been obsessed with for many long years. -- Someone once called the idea a "gestalt being", basically a bunch of fairly humanoid beings merged together either completely or as you please. Semi-independent consciousness, really weirds out the sane side of my mind, never the less tied for #2." Already happening in a rudimentary sense, via the Internet and those who have either wittingly or unwittingly become Network cyborgs with all its psychological manifestations -- abstract neural-linguistic programming, communal on-line memory far more powerful than our biological capabilities, cultural coding and de-coding and brand new semiotic education, as well as social and cultural re-alignments regardless of physical location. 2b (tie) Absurd hedonistic body #5. Also already happening thanks to 2a and re-definitions of what is moral and ethical based on the influence of highly organized virtual subcultures without regard, once more, to physical location and dominant cultural practice within it. > > "5. Human and thankful he was able to avoid the brain-control chip that > the government looks like it's getting ready to force on everybody come > ten to fifteen years.. =(" > Who might be plentiful, thanks to organized resistance using technological know-how and subversion tactics learned by those in camps 2a and b. Aided by our governments complete lack of understanding regarding cultural and technological gestalt and how it might occur, how it is already occurring. And, of course, the common misconception that regionally legislated morality and ethics is any longer sufficient to hold modern societies together. :) Thanks Alan. That fit in pretty well with an e-mail I wrote this morning. Darren > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Oct 1 21:53:15 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 22:53:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] End of time? In-Reply-To: <952080.36439.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <952080.36439.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:43 PM, Tom Nowell wrote: > Tom's four solutions to California's deficit! (in ascending order of workability) > This problem has been much discussed, as you might expect. ;) It's complicated, of course. The basic solution (for the US as well) is to cut spending to match their income. Regrettably, the California government system makes hard decisions almost impossible to achieve. So system reform would be a good idea. What happened was that California had a property boom and most of their tax income comes from property taxes. So when government and the government staff unions saw all that money rolling in, they went spending crazy. Wages, pensions, benefits, social services, extra staff, etc. all grew like Topsy. Then the property slump arrived and tax income dropped. But the newly increased government machine couldn't be cut back. Ergo - deficit. BillK From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Oct 1 16:48:03 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 09:48:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sheldon is a transhumanist! Message-ID: The Singularity Goes Prime Time October 1, 2010 by Phil Bowermaster This week?s episode of the CBS sitcom The Big Bang Theory brings the idea of the technological Singularity to one of the widest audiences it has ever reached. In the opening teaser, ubergeek Sheldon (Jim Parsons) explains to his long-suffering roommate and best fried Leonard (Johnny Galecki) that he is trying to determine how much longer he has to live. Referring to the time line shown here, he laments that he will probably not make it far enough into the future to, well, live to see it would be one way of putting it: Sheldon: At best I have 60 years left. 60 only gets me to here. I need to get here. Leonard: What?s there? Sheldon: The earliest estimate of the Singularity, when man will be able to transfer his consciousness into machines and achieve immortality. Leonard: So, you?re upset about missing out on becoming some sort of freakish, self-aware robot? Sheldon: By this much! Leonard: Tough break. You want eggs? Sheldon: You don?t get it, Leonard. I?m going to miss so much: the Unified Field Theory, Cold Fusion, the dogopus? Leonard: What?s a dogopus? Sheldon: A hybrid dog and octopus ? man?s best underwater friend. Leonard: Is somebody working on that? Sheldon: I was going to. I planned on giving it to myself for my 300th birthday. Popular both with geeks and with the intellectually inferior sorts that Sheldon refers to as ?muggles,? The Big Bang Theory (now in its fourth season) is a major hit, claiming an average of 14 million viewers per week. The show is also critically acclaimed. Just a few weeks ago, Parsons won the 2010 Emmy for Outstanding Lead Actor in a comedy series. If Sheldon?s description of the Singularity seems imprecise, that?s probably by design. While a serious in-depth explanation of what the Singularity is all about would be edifying, it probably wouldn?t make it onto TV. Certainly not network TV. In prime time. On a popular sitcom. Twisting serious scientific and technological ideas into comedic material is one of the show?s major tropes. So the audience gains a certain familiarity with terminology and concepts, but something less than a real understanding of these ideas. Hey, it?s a start. Another major contribution of The Big Bang Theory is that it serves as a kind of mainstream endorsement of geek culture. The Geek Chic movement was one thing, but this is something bigger. As I wrote in 2007 after watching the first few episodes: After all, isn?t it amazing that a show like this can feature four such characters, not as the annoying neighbors or as the object of derision or pity of the real heroes of the show? These guys are the heroes. Three physicists and an engineer ? heroes for our time. One major difference between Sheldon?s description of the Singularity and references we may have seen to it elsewhere in prime time (in Fringe, for example) is that Sheldon describes the Singularity not as a catastrophe to be avoided, or something that is simply ?going to happen,? but rather as a goal. In just a few short sentences he makes a case for life extension, uploading of consciousness, and the achievement of major longstanding scientific aims via cooperation between human and artificial intelligence. Sheldon is a transhumanist! Sure, these ideas are all portrayed as bizarre and ridiculous, but that?s because Sheldon is the nerd of the group. But that?s okay. If The Big Bang Theory has demonstrated anything, it?s how quickly and easily nerdy ideas can become mainstream. Stay tuned. Originally published by Phil Bowermaster in The Speculist, September 30, 2010. http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-singularity-goes-prime-time?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletter+Plain+Text&utm_campaign=46b019c9b6-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email From giulio at gmail.com Fri Oct 1 11:58:59 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 13:58:59 +0200 Subject: [ExI] My talk tonight at the Transhumanism and Spirituality Conference 2010 Message-ID: My talk tonight at the Transhumanism and Spirituality Conference 2010 http://giulioprisco.blogspot.com/2010/10/my-talk-tonight-at-transhumanism-and.html Tonight I will give a talk at the Transhumanism and Spirituality Conference 2010: http://www.transhumanism-spirituality.org/ The conference will explore the intersection of religion, science, spirituality and technology, from a transhumanist perspective. Transhumanism advocates the ethical use of technology to expand human capacities, and observes that if our rapid technological evolution continues to accelerate then humanity will become a new species before the end of the 21st century. I will give a talk on The Cosmic Visions of the Turing Church. Abstract: Following the Turing-Church conjecture, minds can be uploaded from biological brains to other computational substrates. Mind uploading research may achieve practical results within decades. Given the technology, humans may live indefinitely, colonizing the universe, and resurrecting the dead by "copying them to the future". Perhaps they will create synthetic realities inhabited by sentient minds; perhaps we are in a synthetic reality. These considerations parallel the tenets of many religions. The Turing Church will be a meta-religion, without central doctrine, characterized by common interest in the promised land where science and religion meet, science becomes religion, and religion becomes science. I will talk remotely to the audience at the University of Utah in Salt Lake City and to those who will watch the live stream of the conference. I wish to thank the organizers for setting up the live stream, this should be done for all conferences. This is the stream URL: http://www.scl.utah.edu/live_broadcast/index.shtml please come to watch all talks and participate in the discussions. After the talk I will post my slides here, and I understand that the videos of all talks will be available online after the conference. From ryanobjc at gmail.com Fri Oct 1 22:35:04 2010 From: ryanobjc at gmail.com (Ryan Rawson) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 15:35:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sheldon is a transhumanist! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: As an avid watcher of TBBT, this article mischaracterizes the show quite a bit. The real mystery here isnt sheldon declaring he wants to make it to the singularity, but the fact that the sitcom is popular AT ALL. Sheldon isnt really the nerd of the group, he's the UBER NERD with 0 social skills of the group. There is in fact only 1 non-nerd reoccurring character - the neighbour Penny. The rest of the group are pretty nerdy, all holding PhDs except for the poor Masters of engineering from MIT who is continuously made fun of by Sheldon (PhD physics). I have no idea how this sitcom is popular. On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 9:48 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > The Singularity Goes Prime Time > October 1, 2010 by Phil Bowermaster > > This week?s episode of the CBS sitcom The Big Bang Theory brings the > idea of the technological Singularity to one of the widest audiences > it has ever reached. > > In the opening teaser, ubergeek Sheldon (Jim Parsons) explains to his > long-suffering roommate and best fried Leonard (Johnny Galecki) that > he is trying to determine how much longer he has to live. Referring to > the time line shown here, he laments that he will probably not make it > far enough into the future to, well, live to see it would be one way > of putting it: > > Sheldon: At best I have 60 years left. 60 only gets me to here. I need > to get here. > > Leonard: What?s there? > > Sheldon: The earliest estimate of the Singularity, when man will be > able to transfer his consciousness into machines and achieve > immortality. > > Leonard: So, you?re upset about missing out on becoming some sort of > freakish, self-aware robot? > > Sheldon: By this much! > > Leonard: Tough break. You want eggs? > > Sheldon: You don?t get it, Leonard. I?m going to miss so much: the > Unified Field Theory, Cold Fusion, the dogopus? > > Leonard: What?s a dogopus? > > Sheldon: A hybrid dog and octopus ? man?s best underwater friend. > > Leonard: Is somebody working on that? > > Sheldon: I was going to. I planned on giving it to myself for my 300th birthday. > > Popular both with geeks and with the intellectually inferior sorts > that Sheldon refers to as ?muggles,? The Big Bang Theory (now in its > fourth season) is a major hit, claiming an average of ?14 million > viewers per week. The show is also critically acclaimed. Just a few > weeks ago, Parsons won the 2010 Emmy for Outstanding Lead Actor in a > comedy series. > > If Sheldon?s description of the Singularity seems imprecise, that?s > probably by design. While a serious in-depth explanation of what the > Singularity is all about would be edifying, it probably wouldn?t make > it onto TV. > > Certainly not network TV. > > In prime time. > > On a popular sitcom. > > Twisting serious scientific and technological ideas into comedic > material is one of the show?s major tropes. So the audience gains a > certain familiarity with terminology and concepts, but something less > than a real understanding of these ideas. Hey, it?s a start. > > Another major contribution of The Big Bang Theory is that it serves as > a kind of mainstream endorsement of geek culture. The ?Geek Chic > movement was one thing, but this is something bigger. As I wrote in > 2007 after watching the first few episodes: > > After all, isn?t it amazing that a show like this can feature four > such characters, not as the annoying neighbors or as the object of > derision or pity of the real heroes of the show? These guys are the > heroes. > Three physicists and an engineer ? heroes for our time. > > One major difference between Sheldon?s description of the Singularity > and references we may have seen to it elsewhere in prime time (in > Fringe, for example) is that Sheldon describes the Singularity not as > a catastrophe to be avoided, or something that is simply ?going to > happen,? but rather as a goal. In just a few short sentences he makes > a case for life extension, uploading of consciousness, and the > achievement of major longstanding scientific aims via cooperation > between human and artificial intelligence. > > Sheldon is a transhumanist! > > Sure, these ideas are all portrayed as bizarre and ridiculous, but > that?s because Sheldon is the nerd of the group. But that?s okay. If > The Big Bang Theory has demonstrated anything, it?s how quickly and > easily nerdy ideas can become mainstream. Stay tuned. > > Originally published by Phil Bowermaster in The Speculist, September 30, 2010. > > http://www.kurzweilai.net/the-singularity-goes-prime-time?utm_source=KurzweilAI+Daily+Newsletter+Plain+Text&utm_campaign=46b019c9b6-UA-946742-1&utm_medium=email > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From agrimes at speakeasy.net Fri Oct 1 23:05:40 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Fri, 01 Oct 2010 19:05:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Top N things I might like to be. In-Reply-To: References: <4CA55977.9010701@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4CA66944.3080303@speakeasy.net> chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: > Alan wrote: > > "2a (tie) Alternate physicality the crazy side of my mind has been > obsessed with for many long years. -- Someone once called the idea a > "gestalt being", basically a bunch of fairly humanoid beings merged > together either completely or as you please. Semi-independent > consciousness, really weirds out the sane side of my mind, never the > less tied for #2." > Already happening in a rudimentary sense, via the Internet and those who > have either wittingly or unwittingly become Network cyborgs with all its > psychological manifestations -- abstract neural-linguistic programming, > communal on-line memory far more powerful than our biological > capabilities, cultural coding and de-coding and brand new semiotic > education, as well as social and cultural re-alignments regardless of > physical location. I'm not sure you understood what I meant. I don't see any such process that would seem to lead towards a qualitative jump into an actual physical union. > 2b (tie) Absurd hedonistic body #5. > Also already happening thanks to 2a and re-definitions of what is moral > and ethical based on the influence of highly organized virtual > subcultures without regard, once more, to physical location and dominant > cultural practice within it. I wasn't even considering moral or ethical constraints much less legal constraints. I was vaguely alluding to a mode of physical existence that would be difficult to achieve and maintain; offer no practical benefit, and in the final analysis, be little more than an extremely expensive way to stimulate the pleasure centers of my natural brain. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 2 00:37:47 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 17:37:47 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Renormalization (was End of time?) Message-ID: <614916.35040.qm@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> From: Adrian Tymes >To: scerir ; ExI chat list >Sent: Wed, September 29, 2010 9:15:20 AM >Subject: Re: [ExI] End of time? Adrian wrote: ? >The author is confusing senses of "infinity".? There are (infinitely) many >grades of >"infinity" for precisely this reason.? Take a, the number of people who play the >lottery and win, and b, the number of people who play the lottery and lose.? >Let's >say this lottery only happens every time there is an exact multiple of 100 >players, >and that the odds of winning are 1%.? Thus, a = 99 * b.? Therefore, a > b.? This >relationship holds true even if b becomes infinite. I too call bullshit on this paper. First off, I agree with Adrian that they don't know what they are talking about when it comes to probability. The frequency at which?an event?occurs in an infinite number of trials is?practically the?*definition* of probability. ? Secondly their use of the word "regulate" in the abstract tips you off that they are using the process of renormalization or?regularization to get rid of infinities in their computations. For those who don't know what that means, it means using somewhat arbitrary mathematical means to?get rid of?infinities from a calculation in order to get a finite answer. This happens all the time in Quantum Field Theory and String Theory and I think it is bogus. What they did was they took an infinite model of space-time, artificially drew a border around a subset around it that they call a "geometric cutoff" so that they could do math with finite values, and then turned around and claimed that?the geometric cutoff?was a?*real* physical entitity. ? This is no different than?the sailors of?ancient times thinking that if they sailed?past the borders of their map, they would fall off of the edge of the world. ? I am very suspicious of the idea of regularization that string theorists and other modern physicists so blithely use. For example,?they use?theorems from math that were used to rigorously assign values to the sums of divergent series and then treat those values as actual sums. What do I mean?by this? ? Take for example, the series {1+1+1 .?. .} for example.?The?partial sums of this series are simply the natural numbers.?The sum of one term is 1. The sum of two terms is 2. The sum of three terms is 3 and so on. This is what is meant by divergent series is that the partial sums increase without bound and?approach no limit. Now there is a method called zeta function regularization that allows one to patch?singularities in the zeta function by analytic continuation by overlaying?it with a different function that is isomorphic to the zeta function everywhere except for at those singularities where?it takes on a finite value. ? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1_%2B_1_%2B_1_%2B_1_%2B_%C2%B7_%C2%B7_%C2%B7 ? Using this technique, one gets a value for the *infinite* series {1+1+1 .?. .} = -1/2. If this doesn't make sense to you, it's because it is not a sum in the commonly accepted sense.?And for physicists?to call it a sum and treat it as a sum, is just sloppy math. If you were count 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on forever you would *never* reach -1/2. ? And I am not alone in my misgivings of the practices of the string theorists. ? Regarding this practice of "regularization"?or renormalization in physics, Dirac said,?? "Most physicists are very satisfied with the situation. They say: 'Quantum electrodynamics is a good theory and we do not have to worry about it any more.' I must say that I am very dissatisfied with the situation, because this so-called 'good theory' does involve neglecting infinities which appear in its equations, neglecting them in an arbitrary way. This is just not sensible mathematics. Sensible mathematics involves neglecting a quantity when it is small - not neglecting it just because it is infinitely great and you do not want it!" ? And Feynman said: "The shell game that we play ... is technically called 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a dippy process! Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not mathematically legitimate." ? Stuart LaForge "Old men read the lesson in the setting sun. Beat the cymbal and sing in this life, or wail away the hours fearing death. Their choice is their fortune." - I Ching From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Sat Oct 2 02:41:06 2010 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 23:41:06 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Sheldon is a transhumanist! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 7:35 PM, Ryan Rawson wrote: > > As an avid watcher of TBBT, this article mischaracterizes the show > quite a bit. ?The real mystery here isnt sheldon declaring he wants to > make it to the singularity, but the fact that the sitcom is popular AT > ALL. > > Sheldon isnt really the nerd of the group, he's the UBER NERD with 0 > social skills of the group. ?There is in fact only 1 non-nerd > reoccurring character - the neighbour Penny. ?The rest of the group > are pretty nerdy, all holding PhDs except for the poor Masters of > engineering from MIT who is continuously made fun of by Sheldon (PhD > physics). > > I have no idea how this sitcom is popular. > Could it be because it's very well-written and very funny? From giulio at gmail.com Sat Oct 2 09:32:23 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 2 Oct 2010 11:32:23 +0200 Subject: [ExI] My talk tonight at the Transhumanism and Spirituality Conference 2010 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The slides of my talk and the CA Resurrection movie: http://giulioprisco.blogspot.com/2010/10/cosmic-visions-of-turing-church.html On Fri, Oct 1, 2010 at 1:58 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > My talk tonight at the Transhumanism and Spirituality Conference 2010 > http://giulioprisco.blogspot.com/2010/10/my-talk-tonight-at-transhumanism-and.html > > Tonight I will give a talk at the Transhumanism and Spirituality > Conference 2010: > http://www.transhumanism-spirituality.org/ > The conference will explore the intersection of religion, science, > spirituality and technology, from a transhumanist perspective. > Transhumanism advocates the ethical use of technology to expand human > capacities, and observes that if our rapid technological evolution > continues to accelerate then humanity will become a new species before > the end of the 21st century. > > I will give a talk on The Cosmic Visions of the Turing Church. > Abstract: Following the Turing-Church conjecture, minds can be > uploaded from biological brains to other computational substrates. > Mind uploading research may achieve practical results within decades. > Given the technology, humans may live indefinitely, colonizing the > universe, and resurrecting the dead by "copying them to the future". > Perhaps they will create synthetic realities inhabited by sentient > minds; perhaps we are in a synthetic reality. These considerations > parallel the tenets of many religions. The Turing Church will be a > meta-religion, without central doctrine, characterized by common > interest in the promised land where science and religion meet, science > becomes religion, and religion becomes science. > > I will talk remotely to the audience at the University of Utah in Salt > Lake City and to those who will watch the live stream of the > conference. I wish to thank the organizers for setting up the live > stream, this should be done for all conferences. This is the stream > URL: > http://www.scl.utah.edu/live_broadcast/index.shtml > please come to watch all talks and participate in the discussions. > After the talk I will post my slides here, and I understand that the > videos of all talks will be available online after the conference. > From spike66 at att.net Sun Oct 3 22:29:02 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 15:29:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sheldon is a transhumanist! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <34151F82C3884AB383B5462358B6A845@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Keith Henson ... > Subject: [ExI] Sheldon is a transhumanist! > > The Singularity Goes Prime Time > October 1, 2010 by Phil Bowermaster > > This week's episode of the CBS sitcom The Big Bang Theory > brings the idea of the technological Singularity to one of > the widest audiences it has ever reached... Big Bang Theory is played on United cross country US flights, both directions. A few years ago it was always 30 Rock, which was terrible. Now it's BBT which is good most of the time, occasionally hilarious as hell. They need some help from some actual geek writers, but I give them a solid B or B+. Keith, Damien, Jeff Davis, consider offering you skills to that show? spike From spike66 at att.net Sun Oct 3 22:31:49 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 15:31:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Sheldon is a transhumanist! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Ryan Rawson > Subject: Re: [ExI] Sheldon is a transhumanist! > > As an avid watcher of TBBT, this article mischaracterizes the > show quite a bit. > ... > I have no idea how this sitcom is popular. > My 70 yr old mother looooooves that show, never misses an episode, thinks it is the funniest thing since Ally McBeal ended. spike From spike66 at att.net Sun Oct 3 22:39:44 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 3 Oct 2010 15:39:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Renormalization (was End of time?) In-Reply-To: <614916.35040.qm@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <614916.35040.qm@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0A79DE04FFFF4FE5A8BC381C849D9D04@spike> > ...On Behalf Of The Avantguardian ... > ? > And Feynman said: > > "The shell game that we play ... is technically called > 'renormalization'. But no matter how clever the word, it is still what I would call a > dippy process! > Having to resort to such hocus-pocus has prevented us from > proving that the theory of quantum electrodynamics is > mathematically self-consistent. It's surprising that the > theory still hasn't been proved self-consistent one way or > the other by now; I suspect that renormalization is not > mathematically legitimate." Feynman > ? > Stuart LaForge > Ja, but controls engineers use renormalization all the time. Poles in the right half plane? No problem, drop a zero or two on top of that mean old infinity, and it works, aircraft stay in the air, life goes on, etc. Here's an interesting take on it however. The physicists and especially the mathematicians hate the whole notion of renormalization, but engineers use it unapologetically, and seldom lose any sleep over it. So now we have physicists forced to use what amounts to an engineer's approach and the mathematicians throwing rotton tomatoes at it. spike From giulio at gmail.com Mon Oct 4 10:59:30 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 12:59:30 +0200 Subject: [ExI] TransVision 2010 Update: program, abstracts, TVirtual online extension Message-ID: TransVision 2010 Update: program, abstracts, TVirtual online extension http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/2010/10/04/transvision-2010-update-program-abstracts-tvirtual-online-extension/ After the change of conference venue announced last week, the preparation of TransVision 2010 is in full swing. We have updated the conference program with new speakers and the abstracts of Miriam Ji Sun ? Abstract, Francesco Monico ? Abstract, Roberto Guerra ? Abstract, Marta Rossi and Jacopo Tagliabue ? Abstract, Antonio Saccoccio ? Abstract, Randal A. Koene ? Abstract, Danila Medvedev ? Abstract, Valerija Pride ? Abstract, David Styles ? Abstract, Mike Treder ? Abstract, Anders Sandberg ? Abstract, Remi Sussan ? Abstract, Alex Lightman ? Abstract, Khannea Suntzu and Simon Deering ? Abstract, Fiorella Terenzi ? Abstract. Other speakers and abstracts will be added soon. http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/program/ Those who wish to attend the TransVision 2010 conference and community convention (October 22, 23 and 24 in Milan, Italy) but cannot come to Milan will have the option to participate remotely in the TVirtual online extension, watch all talks in realtime, and interact with speakers and other participants. TVirtual, hosted by the teleXLR8 project based on the Teleplace online telepresence platform, will be a mixed-reality event similar to the recent ASIM 2010 Conference. TVirtual tickets are available at a very reduced price. http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/2010/10/03/transvision-2010-conference-to-be-streamed-live-interactively-in-teleplace/ 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 http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/registration/ post links to Twitter, your blogs and websites, and add your name to the TransVision 2010 Facebook page. From scerir at libero.it Mon Oct 4 16:33:17 2010 From: scerir at libero.it (scerir) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 18:33:17 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [ExI] Renormalization (was End of time?) Message-ID: <26785407.2567831286209997437.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> [Avantguardian writes] Regarding this practice of "regularization" or renormalization in physics, Dirac said, "Most physicists are very satisfied with the situation. They say: 'Quantum electrodynamics is a good theory and we do not have to worry about it any more.' # As far as I remember Ed Witten, in his 'Newton lecture (2010)', says something about that, from the p.o.v. of a string theorist of course. Since the speaker is Ed Witten it would be interesting to find out it, maybe. http://www.iop.org/resources/videos/lectures/page_44292.html From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 02:57:10 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 19:57:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Renormalization (was End of time?) In-Reply-To: <0A79DE04FFFF4FE5A8BC381C849D9D04@spike> References: <614916.35040.qm@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> <0A79DE04FFFF4FE5A8BC381C849D9D04@spike> Message-ID: <58330.34661.qm@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > From: spike > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Sun, October 3, 2010 3:39:44 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Renormalization (was End of time?) > > Ja, but controls engineers use renormalization all the time.? Poles in the > right half plane?? No problem, drop a zero or two on top of that mean old > infinity, and it works, aircraft stay in the air, life goes on, etc. > > Here's an interesting take on it however.? The physicists and especially the > mathematicians hate the whole notion of renormalization, but engineers use > it unapologetically, and seldom lose any sleep over it.? So now we have > physicists forced to use what amounts to an engineer's approach and the > mathematicians throwing rotton tomatoes at it. > > spike Hmmm. In the 19th Century, Newton envisioned the universe as a giant clock which happened to be one of the most sophisticated machines of his day.?More recently Nick Bostrum et. al. envisioned the universe as a giant computer which happens to be one of the?the most sophisticated machines of our time. While I have my doubts that the universe actually *is* a machine, it could nonetheless be *like* a machine of some as of yet unknown type. Then insofar as physics could be thought of as an?endeavor to reverse engineer the universe, then it actually makes sense to use what amounts to engineering techniques to do so. Stuart LaForge "Old men read the lesson in the setting sun. Beat the cymbal and sing in this life, or wail away the hours fearing death. Their choice is their fortune." - I Ching From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 02:59:17 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 19:59:17 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Renormalization (was End of time?) In-Reply-To: <26785407.2567831286209997437.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> References: <26785407.2567831286209997437.JavaMail.defaultUser@defaultHost> Message-ID: <715810.48501.qm@web65604.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > From: scerir > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Mon, October 4, 2010 9:33:17 AM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Renormalization (was End of time?) > > [Avantguardian writes] > Regarding this practice of "regularization" or renormalization in physics, > Dirac > said,? "Most physicists are very satisfied with the situation. They say: > 'Quantum > electrodynamics is a good theory and we do not have to worry about it any > more.' > > # As far as I remember Ed Witten, in his 'Newton lecture (2010)', says > something > about that, from the p.o.v. of a string theorist of course. Since the speaker > is > Ed Witten it would be interesting to find out it, maybe. > http://www.iop.org/resources/videos/lectures/page_44292.html Thanks for the link. The video was actually one of the more accessable introductions to String Theory that I have seen.? From spike66 at att.net Tue Oct 5 04:02:41 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 4 Oct 2010 21:02:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Renormalization (was End of time?) In-Reply-To: <58330.34661.qm@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <614916.35040.qm@web65602.mail.ac4.yahoo.com><0A79DE04FFFF4FE5A8BC381C849D9D04@spike> <58330.34661.qm@web65605.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5D69523F31DE441D8D7E5A55F255D32A@spike> > ...On Behalf Of The Avantguardian ... > > > > Here's an interesting take on it however.? The physicists and > > especially the mathematicians hate the whole notion of > > renormalization, but engineers use it unapologetically, and seldom > > lose any sleep over it... spike > > Hmmm. In the 19th Century, Newton envisioned the universe as > a giant clock which happened to be one of the most > sophisticated machines of his day.?More recently Nick Bostrum > et. al. envisioned the universe as a giant computer... > then it actually makes sense to use what amounts to > engineering techniques to do so... Stuart LaForge Ja that is one way to look at it, Avant. I see it like this: There are teenage harlots, and there are church ladies. Both groups influence the other women, who are not completely comfortable with either side, but may have some characteristics of each group. Engineers do things that are mathematically improper every day, scandalously so, unabashedly. We get paid, the stuff we do works, we get the job done. The mathematicians insist on being so very mathematically proper at all times, and look down on anyone who is not as virtuous as they are. So in that model, the mathematicians are the church ladies and we engineers are the whores. These groups hold each other in mutual disdain. In that analogy the physicists are the high school girls, who identify with both groups to some extent, but really just want to have fun. spike From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Tue Oct 5 11:38:53 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 08:38:53 -0300 Subject: [ExI] [Exi} Mechanical Engineers can be Artists too Message-ID: Linear Wave Sculpture by Rubin Margolin http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dehXioMIKg0 -- "I don't regret the kingdoms. What sense in borders and nations and patriotism? But I miss the kings." -*Harold and Maude* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Oct 5 18:21:41 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 19:21:41 +0100 Subject: [ExI] 'Stalking' is now a business plan Message-ID: 'Pre-crime' Comes to the HR Dept. September 29, 2010 By Mike Elgan In the Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report, police belonging to a special Pre-crime unit arrest people for crimes they would do in the future. It's science fiction, and it will probably never happen in our lifetimes. However, the pre-crime concept is coming very soon to the world of Human Resources (HR) and employee management. A Santa Barbara, Calif., startup called Social Intelligence data-mines the social networks to help companies decide if they really want to hire you. While background checks, which mainly look for a criminal record, and even credit checks have become more common, Social Intelligence is the first company that I'm aware of that systematically trolls social networks for evidence of bad character. Using automation software that slogs through Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, LinkedIn, blogs, and "thousands of other sources," the company develops a report on the "real you" -- not the carefully crafted you in your resume. The service is called Social Intelligence Hiring. The company promises a 48-hour turn-around. ......................... The company also offers a separate Social Intelligence Monitoring service to watch the personal activity of existing employees on an ongoing basis. The service is advertised as a way to enforce company social media policies, but given that criteria are company-defined, it's not clear whether it's possible to monitor personal activity. The service provides real-time notification alerts, so presumably the moment your old college buddy tags an old photo of you naked, drunk and armed on Facebook, the boss gets a text message with a link. ------------------------------------ End Quotes There are already services available to 'clean-up' your internet records. One comment suggested another new business could be to generate a new internet presence for you, recording all your wonderful attributes, so that your analysis doesn't tick any of the 'danger' boxes and sends out a 'hire me' signal. The transparent society marches onwards. BillK From spike66 at att.net Tue Oct 5 20:11:34 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 13:11:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] 'Stalking' is now a business plan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of BillK > ... > One comment suggested another new business could be to > generate a new internet presence for you, recording all your > wonderful attributes, so that your analysis doesn't tick any > of the 'danger' boxes and sends out a 'hire me' signal. > > The transparent society marches onwards... BillK As one currently navigating a nearly hopeless job market, this post really strikes a responsive cord. Were I a hiring manager, I would not use such a service, but I would google on the email @ of the applicant. If I do that with mine, usually the first several hits are goofy comments I made on ExI-chat. I have several other chat groups I occasional post, but there I make sane, reasonable comments always, because of the nature of the group. Here I cut up a lot, refer to old gags from a long time ago such as the sex lamas and so forth. For some odd reason, google seems to find my greatest silliness, neeeever finding the occasional jewels of wisdom, rather always bringing some cut-up or goofball comment. How can I ever get a job when managers can so easily find out about my association with... well, you guys. Google on your email @, see what I mean. spike From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue Oct 5 20:27:26 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 13:27:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] 'Stalking' is now a business plan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <935996.90606.qm@web30108.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Geez! I'm in serious?trouble. :) Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ---- From: BillK To: Extropy Chat Sent: Tue, October 5, 2010 2:21:41 PM Subject: [ExI] 'Stalking' is now a business plan 'Pre-crime' Comes to the HR Dept. September 29, 2010? ? By? ? Mike Elgan In the Steven Spielberg movie Minority Report, police belonging to a special Pre-crime unit arrest people for crimes they would do in the future. It's science fiction, and it will probably never happen in our lifetimes. However, the pre-crime concept is coming very soon to the world of Human Resources (HR) and employee management. A Santa Barbara, Calif., startup called Social Intelligence data-mines the social networks to help companies decide if they really want to hire you. While background checks, which mainly look for a criminal record, and even credit checks have become more common, Social Intelligence is the first company that I'm aware of that systematically trolls social networks for evidence of bad character. Using automation software that slogs through Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, YouTube, LinkedIn, blogs, and "thousands of other sources," the company develops a report on the "real you" -- not the carefully crafted you in your resume. The service is called Social Intelligence Hiring. The company promises a 48-hour turn-around. ......................... The company also offers a separate Social Intelligence Monitoring service to watch the personal activity of existing employees on an ongoing basis. The service is advertised as a way to enforce company social media policies, but given that criteria are company-defined, it's not clear whether it's possible to monitor personal activity. The service provides real-time notification alerts, so presumably the moment your old college buddy tags an old photo of you naked, drunk and armed on Facebook, the boss gets a text message with a link. ------------------------------------ End Quotes There are already services available to 'clean-up' your internet records. One comment suggested another new business could be to generate a new internet presence for you, recording all your wonderful attributes, so that your analysis doesn't tick any of the 'danger' boxes and sends out a 'hire me' signal. The transparent society marches onwards. BillK From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Oct 6 03:35:31 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 23:35:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] 'Stalking' is now a business plan In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 5, 2010 at 4:11 PM, spike wrote: > Google on your email @, see what I mean. It used to be that you could have a gmail account just by signing up. Now you either need to authenticate your identity via another account or by providing a phone number to receive texts. Stalking has always been a business plan. It was "contact management" and before computers it was being a "go getter" that allowed someone to track you down or find you out. It used to be expensive - if you wanted to know where a potentially cheating spouse was during the day, you had to hire an investigator to spend a 1:1 amount of time investigating. Today you can have software do the tedious work and that ratio goes to one investigator for a thousand or a million people. It's not even nefarious. People sign up for tracking... er... shoppers club cards to get $0.50 off a box of hot pockets. Actually a typical American is signing up to get $1.00 off 5 boxes of hot pockets: we're not so good at the $0.20/box < $0.50/box math, instead focusing only on the 5 boxes > 1 box metric. I digress. From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Oct 6 04:57:01 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 5 Oct 2010 21:57:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] PBS Television: FutureStates Message-ID: I am fascinated by this futurist program that PBS has brought to the internet! I look forward to the list discussion. John : ) "What will become of America in five, 25, or even 50 years from today? FUTURESTATES is a series of 11 fictional mini-features exploring possible future scenarios through the lens of today?s global realities. Immerse yourself in the visions of these independent prognosticators as they project a future of their own imagining." "Each episode has a minisite, with blog posts by the director, information on the cast and crew, and space for viewers to contribute their thoughts." "Project Yourself into the Future, forecast future events, and explore the predictions left by others in our immersive Predict-o-Meter." http://video.pbs.org/program/1423902501/ From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Oct 6 22:34:46 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 15:34:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bees & Spike... ; ) Message-ID: This is of course from the Onion... : ) http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-suddenly-realizes-hes-the-one-whos-been-k,18044/ John From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 6 23:00:59 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 6 Oct 2010 16:00:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Bees & Spike... ; ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of John Grigg > Subject: [ExI] Bees & Spike... ; ) > > This is of course from the Onion... : ) > > http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-suddenly-realizes-hes-the-one-whos -been-k,18044/ > > John Not me, I have been trying to keep them alive! spike From ablainey at aol.com Wed Oct 6 23:44:31 2010 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Wed, 06 Oct 2010 19:44:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Bees & Spike... ; ) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CD33C78EBDC3AE-1C34-412B@webmail-d047.sysops.aol.com> I have been keeping an eye on the local bee's for a couple of years and have noticed the decline in honey bees. However I have paid attention to solitary and small colony bees which are up hugely in numbers (in my garden and locally). Bumbles still seem to be about the same. The majority of bees that have seen pollinated our fruit trees and flowers this year were very small bees species. A -----Original Message----- From: spike To: 'ExI chat list' Sent: Thu, Oct 7, 2010 12:00 am Subject: Re: [ExI] Bees & Spike... ; ) > ...On Behalf Of John Grigg > Subject: [ExI] Bees & Spike... ; ) > > This is of course from the Onion... : ) > > http://www.theonion.com/articles/area-man-suddenly-realizes-hes-the-one-whos -been-k,18044/ > > John Not me, I have been trying to keep them alive! spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Oct 8 15:30:01 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:30:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration Message-ID: Does anyone have a copy of the original declaration and who authored it? (There were a dozen or so of us who wrote it). All references to it have been pulled from the website. I have this in my files, but it will take me a day or so to find it. If anyone has it right off hand, that would be great. Thanks, N Natasha Vita-More -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Oct 8 15:40:25 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 10:40:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/10/8 Natasha Vita-More > Does anyone have a copy of the original declaration and who authored it? > (There were a dozen or so of us who wrote it). All references to it have > been pulled from the website. I have this in my files, but it will take me > a day or so to find it. If anyone has it right off hand, that would be > great. This one has the list of authors/signees: http://www.uktranshumanistassociation.org/declaration.shtml - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Fri Oct 8 17:02:04 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Fri, 8 Oct 2010 13:02:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Bee disappearance explained? Message-ID: Since insects are always on topic here... http://www.newscientist.com/blogs/shortsharpscience/2010/10/jessica-hamzelou-reporter-norm.html Honeybee disapperance mystery may be solved Has the curious case of the disappearing honeybees finally been solved? A twin attack of virus and fungus may have dealt the insects a deadly double-whammy. Colony collapse disorder - the mysterious phenomenon that has led to thousands of beehives being abandoned by their occupants - has puzzled beekeepers and researchers for years. The disappearance of the bees has made it difficult to figure out the cause of CCD, though there has been no shortage of contenders including a paralysing virus, a parasite, and even radiation from mobile phones. Now Jerry Bromenshenk at the University of Montana and his colleagues have a new theory: virus + fungus = lethal beehive conditions. The group managed to find some remains of dead bees from 31 bee colonies affected by CCD between 2006 and 2007 from across the United States. They compared microbes in the samples to those from bees in a failing hive in 2008, a hive that collapsed in 2009, bees delivered from to the US from Australia and healthy bees unaffected by CCD. Protein analysis of the samples threw up two suspects that only turned up in hives struck by CCD - invertebrate iridescent virus (IIV) and Nosema fungal infection (PLoS ONE, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0013181). The two-pronged attack needed to trigger full-blown CCD may have thrown previous research attempts off the track, the group say. The presence or absence of IIV in a given honey bee colony may explain why in the US, Nosema sometimes seems to contribute to severe colony losses - when the virus is present - but not when the virus is absent, the authors say in the paper. ... -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Oct 8 18:03:32 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 14:03:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20101008140332.l1kmz1428c4w088c@webmail.natasha.cc> Good! Great! This will be very helpful to the student who is mentioning it in her PhD dissertation. Best, N Quoting Bryan Bishop : > 2010/10/8 Natasha Vita-More > >> Does anyone have a copy of the original declaration and who authored it? >> (There were a dozen or so of us who wrote it). All references to it have >> been pulled from the website. I have this in my files, but it will take me >> a day or so to find it. If anyone has it right off hand, that would be >> great. > > > This one has the list of authors/signees: > http://www.uktranshumanistassociation.org/declaration.shtml > > - Bryan > http://heybryan.org/ > 1 512 203 0507 > From ablainey at aol.com Fri Oct 8 18:34:50 2010 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 14:34:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CD352EA01FB8B9-D04-A5FE@webmail-d036.sysops.aol.com> By coincidence I happened across it just the other night and it is so long I have seen it that i'd forgotten it existed. It got me thinking about whether the work I have been doing for the disabled with mind controlled electronics is transhuman or not. For one point of view (and quite callous) it can be seen as raising the subhuman (horrible term) to a more human level. But from another I think it is transhuman. The implications and possibilities of the technology are obviously very transhuman. What say you all? Under the declaration do we have a moral obligation to improve the standard of life for those who are less fortunate before we reach for our own immortality? Personally I think we do, but then I don't really see them as mutually exclusive. A -----Original Message----- From: Natasha Vita-More To: 'ExI chat list' Sent: Fri, Oct 8, 2010 4:30 pm Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration Does anyone have a copy of the original declaration and who authored it? (There were a dozen or so of us who wrote it). All references to it have been pulled from the website. I have this in my files, but it will take me a day or so to find it. If anyone has it right off hand, that would be great. Thanks, N Natasha Vita-More _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bret at bonfireproductions.com Fri Oct 8 19:07:55 2010 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (bret at bonfireproductions.com) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 14:07:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com> Not this here? http://humanityplus.org/learn/transhumanist-declaration/ Or does this help? http://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~gros/Mind2010/transhumanDeclaration.pdf ~]3 Quoting Natasha Vita-More : > Does anyone have a copy of the original declaration and who authored it? > (There were a dozen or so of us who wrote it). All references to it have > been pulled from the website. I have this in my files, but it will take me > a day or so to find it. If anyone has it right off hand, that would be > great. > > Thanks, > N > > > Natasha Vita-More > > From bret at bonfireproductions.com Fri Oct 8 19:12:07 2010 From: bret at bonfireproductions.com (bret at bonfireproductions.com) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 14:12:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com> References: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com> Message-ID: <20101008141207.yb0ae6wh0gg8kco4@webmail.creationstorm.com> Here's me reading chronologically on a phone. Sorry all! So when are we leaving for Gliese? ; ) Quoting bret at bonfireproductions.com: > > Not this here? > http://humanityplus.org/learn/transhumanist-declaration/ > > Or does this help? > http://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~gros/Mind2010/transhumanDeclaration.pdf > > ~]3 > > Quoting Natasha Vita-More : > >> Does anyone have a copy of the original declaration and who authored it? >> (There were a dozen or so of us who wrote it). All references to it have >> been pulled from the website. I have this in my files, but it will take me >> a day or so to find it. If anyone has it right off hand, that would be >> great. >> >> Thanks, >> N >> >> >> Natasha Vita-More >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Oct 8 19:27:22 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 14:27:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: <20101008141207.yb0ae6wh0gg8kco4@webmail.creationstorm.com> References: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com> <20101008141207.yb0ae6wh0gg8kco4@webmail.creationstorm.com> Message-ID: <4CAF709A.5070007@satx.rr.com> On 10/8/2010 2:12 PM, bret at bonfireproductions.com wrote: > So when are we leaving for Gliese? At twilight. Oh, no, sorry, that's where we arrive. Damien Broderick From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Oct 8 19:39:13 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Fri, 08 Oct 2010 15:39:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com> References: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com> Message-ID: <20101008153913.32st5a8n34k40kcs@webmail.natasha.cc> Unfortunaely this version does not have the authors listed nor a date when it was written, nor any edits to it. Thanks, natasha Quoting bret at bonfireproductions.com: > > Not this here? > http://humanityplus.org/learn/transhumanist-declaration/ > > Or does this help? > http://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~gros/Mind2010/transhumanDeclaration.pdf > > ~]3 > > Quoting Natasha Vita-More : > >> Does anyone have a copy of the original declaration and who authored it? >> (There were a dozen or so of us who wrote it). All references to it have >> been pulled from the website. I have this in my files, but it will take me >> a day or so to find it. If anyone has it right off hand, that would be >> great. >> >> Thanks, >> N >> >> >> Natasha Vita-More >> >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Oct 9 14:05:04 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 09:05:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: <8CD352EA01FB8B9-D04-A5FE@webmail-d036.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD352EA01FB8B9-D04-A5FE@webmail-d036.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <427C4F6CA45347EEA29DBED561E77349@DFC68LF1> Do you have a link to the work you have been doing? People with disabilities are not subhuman, they are human. We all have disabilities to some degree and unfortunately some people have them to a large degree. I do not think we have a moral obligation to improve the disabilities of humans before a transhuman, posthuman or upload (TPU)obtains radical prolongevity. Those with disabilities who are unable to make the distinction concerning enhancement ought to be protected by a right to have their disabilities cured to a human level and then they can make their own choices about TPU. I consider this action to be a "humane act of awareness/consciousness/kindness to other people" rather than a "moral obligation". best, N Natasha Vita-More _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ablainey at aol.com Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 1:35 PM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration By coincidence I happened across it just the other night and it is so long I have seen it that i'd forgotten it existed. It got me thinking about whether the work I have been doing for the disabled with mind controlled electronics is transhuman or not. For one point of view (and quite callous) it can be seen as raising the subhuman (horrible term) to a more human level. But from another I think it is transhuman. The implications and possibilities of the technology are obviously very transhuman. What say you all? Under the declaration do we have a moral obligation to improve the standard of life for those who are less fortunate before we reach for our own immortality? Personally I think we do, but then I don't really see them as mutually exclusive. A -----Original Message----- From: Natasha Vita-More To: 'ExI chat list' Sent: Fri, Oct 8, 2010 4:30 pm Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration Does anyone have a copy of the original declaration and who authored it? (There were a dozen or so of us who wrote it). All references to it have been pulled from the website. I have this in my files, but it will take me a day or so to find it. If anyone has it right off hand, that would be great. Thanks, N Natasha Vita-More _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Oct 9 14:08:19 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 09:08:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com> References: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com> Message-ID: <6EE3860BCB214CB5B538D982484A8345@DFC68LF1> The problem with these is that it makes the Transhumanist Declaration appear to be owned/written by WTA (e.g. the logo at the bottom of the declaration), which is incorrect. But thank you so much for bringing this to my attention! Best, N Natasha Vita-More -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of bret at bonfireproductions.com Sent: Friday, October 08, 2010 2:08 PM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration Not this here? http://humanityplus.org/learn/transhumanist-declaration/ Or does this help? http://itp.uni-frankfurt.de/~gros/Mind2010/transhumanDeclaration.pdf ~]3 Quoting Natasha Vita-More : > Does anyone have a copy of the original declaration and who authored it? > (There were a dozen or so of us who wrote it). All references to it > have been pulled from the website. I have this in my files, but it > will take me a day or so to find it. If anyone has it right off hand, > that would be great. > > Thanks, > N > > > Natasha Vita-More > > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Oct 9 14:25:39 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 07:25:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A certain cult Message-ID: http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Scientology_defector_arrested_after_attempting_to_leave_organization From pharos at gmail.com Sat Oct 9 15:00:54 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 16:00:54 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: <6EE3860BCB214CB5B538D982484A8345@DFC68LF1> References: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com> <6EE3860BCB214CB5B538D982484A8345@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > The problem with these is that it makes the Transhumanist Declaration appear > to be owned/written by WTA (e.g. the logo at the bottom of the declaration), > which is incorrect. > > Strange? Internet sources (and I suspect the WTA) do think the WTA developed it. According to Nick Bostrom (one of many sources): Quote: The World Transhumanist Association was founded in early 1998 by Nick Bostrom and David Pearce, to provide a general organizational basis for all transhumanist groups and interests, across the political spectrum. The aim was also to develop a more mature and academically respectable form of transhumanism, freed from the "cultishness " which, at least in the eyes of some critics, had afflicted some of its earlier convocations. The two founding documents of the WTA were the Transhumanist Declaration (see appendix), and the Transhumanist FAQ (v. 1.0).[41] The Declaration was intended as a concise consensus statement of the basic principle of transhumanism. The FAQ was also a consensus or near-consensus document, but it was more ambitious in its philosophical scope in that it developed a number of themes that had previously been, at most, implicit in the movement. More than fifty people contributed comments on drafts of the FAQ. The document was produced by Bostrom but major parts and ideas were also contributed by several others, including the British utilitarian thinker David Pearce, Max More, the American feminist and disability rights activist Kathryn Aegis, and the walking encyclopedia Anders Sandberg, who was at the time a neuroscience student in Sweden. ----------------------------------- Are you perhaps remembering A Transhumanist Declaration ?1998 Max More THE EXTROPIAN PRINCIPLES Version 3.0 which was a different document? BillK From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Oct 9 15:20:22 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 10:20:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: References: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com><6EE3860BCB214CB5B538D982484A8345@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: WTA did not develop the Transhumanist Declaration or the FAQ. These two documents were the vision of a few people and written by a few and then edited by a dozen or so people before WTA voted to adopt them. So, there were in existence prior to WTA's formation. Bty, no, I was not referring to Max's Transhumanist Declaration of the Extropy Principles. Although this document is a viable Transhumanist Declaration as is the Transhuman Statement written in 1982. Best, Natasha Natasha Vita-More -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 10:01 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > The problem with these is that it makes the Transhumanist Declaration > appear to be owned/written by WTA (e.g. the logo at the bottom of the > declaration), which is incorrect. > > Strange? Internet sources (and I suspect the WTA) do think the WTA developed it. According to Nick Bostrom (one of many sources): Quote: The World Transhumanist Association was founded in early 1998 by Nick Bostrom and David Pearce, to provide a general organizational basis for all transhumanist groups and interests, across the political spectrum. The aim was also to develop a more mature and academically respectable form of transhumanism, freed from the "cultishness " which, at least in the eyes of some critics, had afflicted some of its earlier convocations. The two founding documents of the WTA were the Transhumanist Declaration (see appendix), and the Transhumanist FAQ (v. 1.0).[41] The Declaration was intended as a concise consensus statement of the basic principle of transhumanism. The FAQ was also a consensus or near-consensus document, but it was more ambitious in its philosophical scope in that it developed a number of themes that had previously been, at most, implicit in the movement. More than fifty people contributed comments on drafts of the FAQ. The document was produced by Bostrom but major parts and ideas were also contributed by several others, including the British utilitarian thinker David Pearce, Max More, the American feminist and disability rights activist Kathryn Aegis, and the walking encyclopedia Anders Sandberg, who was at the time a neuroscience student in Sweden. ----------------------------------- Are you perhaps remembering A Transhumanist Declaration C1998 Max More THE EXTROPIAN PRINCIPLES Version 3.0 which was a different document? BillK _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From max at maxmore.com Sat Oct 9 16:21:08 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 11:21:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Hal Lewis' resignation from The American Physical Society Message-ID: <201010091621.o99GLBoJ011243@andromeda.ziaspace.com> As a result of the APS part in creating the fake "consensus". http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-american-physical-society/#more-26117 From pharos at gmail.com Sat Oct 9 16:25:01 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 17:25:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: References: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com> <6EE3860BCB214CB5B538D982484A8345@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > WTA did not develop the Transhumanist Declaration or the FAQ. ?These two > documents were the vision of a few people and written by a few and then > edited by a dozen or so people before WTA voted to adopt them. ?So, there > were in existence prior to WTA's formation. > > Ah, I see. That's what the H+ site says as well. Quote: The Declaration was originally written in 1998 by an international group of authors, and then modified and re-adopted by the Humanity+ membership in 2002. This revision was adopted by the Humanity+ Board in March, 2009. -------------- So there were several versions of the document. It appears that the version on the H+ site was modified by the WTA before adoption though. I think the originals of both the Declaration and the FAQ have disappeared from view leaving only the versions adopted by H+. H+ does give credit to the many people involved in developing these documents. (The wording on the Wikipedia article probably needs some amendments). BillK From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Oct 9 16:34:29 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 11:34:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: References: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com><6EE3860BCB214CB5B538D982484A8345@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: <13596B1242EF4FF8B357896197D392E4@DFC68LF1> Yes, I agree and this is a shame. Maybe someone here can fix this at Wikipedia. My records show these folks as the original authors of the Transhumanist Declaration: Alexander Chislenko, Max More, Eugene Leitl, Natasha Vita-More, Bernie Staring, Anders Sandberg, David Pearce, Doug Baily Jr., Kathryn Aegis, Lee Daniel Crocker, Darren Reynolds, Arjen Kamphuis Natasha Vita-More -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 11:25 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 4:20 PM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > WTA did not develop the Transhumanist Declaration or the FAQ. ?These > two documents were the vision of a few people and written by a few and > then edited by a dozen or so people before WTA voted to adopt them. ? > So, there were in existence prior to WTA's formation. > > Ah, I see. That's what the H+ site says as well. Quote: The Declaration was originally written in 1998 by an international group of authors, and then modified and re-adopted by the Humanity+ membership in 2002. This revision was adopted by the Humanity+ Board in March, 2009. -------------- So there were several versions of the document. It appears that the version on the H+ site was modified by the WTA before adoption though. I think the originals of both the Declaration and the FAQ have disappeared from view leaving only the versions adopted by H+. H+ does give credit to the many people involved in developing these documents. (The wording on the Wikipedia article probably needs some amendments). BillK _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From atymes at gmail.com Sat Oct 9 16:50:36 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 09:50:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: <13596B1242EF4FF8B357896197D392E4@DFC68LF1> References: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com> <6EE3860BCB214CB5B538D982484A8345@DFC68LF1> <13596B1242EF4FF8B357896197D392E4@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Yes, I agree and this is a shame. Maybe someone here can fix this at > Wikipedia. > > I've edited the two pages on Wikipedia I see it on, from "In 1999, the WTA drafted and adopted the Transhumanist Declaration" to "In 2002, the WTA modified and adopted the Transhumanist Declaration", with a reference to their site where they say as much. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Oct 9 16:58:25 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 09:58:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Hal Lewis' resignation from The American Physical Society In-Reply-To: <201010091621.o99GLBoJ011243@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201010091621.o99GLBoJ011243@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Max More > Subject: [ExI] Hal Lewis' resignation from The American > Physical Society > > As a result of the APS part in creating the fake "consensus". > > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-amer ican-physical-society/#more-26117 Funny story for a Saturday morning. I was walking by my computer, saw Max's post with the title Hal Lewis' resignation... etc. I wasn't wearing my reading glasses, and thought it said Ha! Lewis' resignation... etc, as one might say Ha! Yanks defeat commies in chess olympiad (assuming one is a yank who finds commies distasteful in general.) So I read the entire article, still thinking it was Max exulting over Lewis resigning from APS. Then I noticed he wasn't actually exulting, but rather citing only, in a neutral manner. So regardless of Max's unstated intent, I exult over this article, so Ha! Hal Lewis resigned from APS. Reasoning: regardless of whether global warming is true or false, regardless of whether it is manmade or otherwise (and I see good evidence on all sides of these question) I have personally witnessed what looks to me like scientific malpractice on all sides of this issue, corruption by money and politics of a damn complicated question, claims of solid consensus on a topic in which reasonable doubt is perfectly legitimate. It is perfectly OK to have a strong scientific opinion on a matter which is not yet completely settled. But it is not OK to claim scientific consensus before it actually exists. The jury may be about 8-4 on this, but it is still out of the room. Lewis isn't actually claiming global warming is wrong or natural, only that the jury is still out on this one. spike From spike66 at att.net Sat Oct 9 17:10:10 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 10:10:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: <13596B1242EF4FF8B357896197D392E4@DFC68LF1> References: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com><6EE3860BCB214CB5B538D982484A8345@DFC68LF1> <13596B1242EF4FF8B357896197D392E4@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More ... > Subject: Re: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration > > ... Kathryn Aegis, Lee Daniel Crocker, Darren Reynolds... > Lee Daniel Crocker! Where the heck has he been hiding for the last ten years? I really miss that guy. I remember him making the funniest comments (at I think Extro4, mighta been 3) that got us laughing so hard we couldn't even eat our food without the risk of it spewing from our noses. It was a hoot! And he wasn't even trying to be funny, wasn't cutting up. Rather he was just expressing what the world looked like peering out the eyes of the unique Lee Daniel Crocker. If anyone is buddies with Lee Daniel, do invite him warmly to drop in, just to say hi, and we miss his input, etc. spike From pharos at gmail.com Sat Oct 9 17:23:01 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 18:23:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: References: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com> <6EE3860BCB214CB5B538D982484A8345@DFC68LF1> <13596B1242EF4FF8B357896197D392E4@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 6:10 PM, spike wrote: > If anyone is buddies with Lee Daniel, do invite him warmly to drop in, just > to say hi, and we miss his input, etc. > > Lee is is chatting away on Facebook: Give him a poke (as the saying goes)......... BillK From rpwl at lightlink.com Sat Oct 9 18:07:38 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 14:07:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Hal Lewis' resignation from The American Physical Society In-Reply-To: References: <201010091621.o99GLBoJ011243@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <4CB0AF6A.50600@lightlink.com> spike wrote: > > >> ...On Behalf Of Max More >> Subject: [ExI] Hal Lewis' resignation from The American >> Physical Society >> >> As a result of the APS part in creating the fake "consensus". >> >> > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/08/hal-lewis-my-resignation-from-the-amer > ican-physical-society/#more-26117 > > Funny story for a Saturday morning. > > I was walking by my computer, saw Max's post with the title Hal Lewis' > resignation... etc. I wasn't wearing my reading glasses, and thought it > said Ha! Lewis' resignation... etc, as one might say Ha! Yanks defeat > commies in chess olympiad (assuming one is a yank who finds commies > distasteful in general.) > > So I read the entire article, still thinking it was Max exulting over Lewis > resigning from APS. Then I noticed he wasn't actually exulting, but rather > citing only, in a neutral manner. So regardless of Max's unstated intent, I > exult over this article, so Ha! Hal Lewis resigned from APS. > > Reasoning: regardless of whether global warming is true or false, regardless > of whether it is manmade or otherwise (and I see good evidence on all sides > of these question) I have personally witnessed what looks to me like > scientific malpractice on all sides of this issue, corruption by money and > politics of a damn complicated question, claims of solid consensus on a > topic in which reasonable doubt is perfectly legitimate. > > It is perfectly OK to have a strong scientific opinion on a matter which is > not yet completely settled. But it is not OK to claim scientific consensus > before it actually exists. The jury may be about 8-4 on this, but it is > still out of the room. Lewis isn't actually claiming global warming is > wrong or natural, only that the jury is still out on this one. The LACK of a scientific consensus is only perceived by a scientifically illiterate, politically motivated group that will use whatever dirty tricks it can to pervert the course of normal scientific inquiry. Or: The jury is "only about 8-4 on this"? Bullshit. Richard Loosemore From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Oct 9 18:49:57 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 13:49:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: References: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com><6EE3860BCB214CB5B538D982484A8345@DFC68LF1><13596B1242EF4FF8B357896197D392E4@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: <3536B38612E54025836DC752862D11C3@DFC68LF1> How about putting stating when it was originally written with a footnote listing the authors. It is strange that whomever authored thie Wikipedia page did not accurately state this. Thanks Adrian. Natasha Vita-More _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 11:51 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: Yes, I agree and this is a shame. Maybe someone here can fix this at Wikipedia. I've edited the two pages on Wikipedia I see it on, from "In 1999, the WTA drafted and adopted the Transhumanist Declaration" to "In 2002, the WTA modified and adopted the Transhumanist Declaration", with a reference to their site where they say as much. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From max at maxmore.com Sat Oct 9 18:56:15 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 13:56:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Hal Lewis' resignation from The American Physical Society Message-ID: <201010091856.o99IuIfu000997@andromeda.ziaspace.com> >The LACK of a scientific consensus is only perceived by a scientifically >illiterate, politically motivated group that will use whatever dirty >tricks it can to pervert the course of normal scientific inquiry. > >Or: The jury is "only about 8-4 on this"? Bullshit. Bullshit to your bullshit. (There, see how helpful that kind of response is.) More specifically, and for instance: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/25/where-consensus-fails/ I'm currently reading about the great flaws in another "consensus", this one to do with the causes of obesity and diet-related health issues: Gary Taubes, Good Calories, Bad Calories. One emblem of this is the Government's official Food Guide Pyramid -- another damaging area of flawed official position. Max ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Co-editor, The Transhumanist Reader The Proactionary Project Vice Chair, Humanity+ Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- From atymes at gmail.com Sat Oct 9 19:06:36 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 12:06:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: <3536B38612E54025836DC752862D11C3@DFC68LF1> References: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com> <6EE3860BCB214CB5B538D982484A8345@DFC68LF1> <13596B1242EF4FF8B357896197D392E4@DFC68LF1> <3536B38612E54025836DC752862D11C3@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: You can edit it too, you know. ;) More seriously, if you have suggested revisions like this, the end result will probably be better if you edit the pages directly, instead of going through a third party (like me). The two pages I found it on were http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_transhumanism (at the top) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transhumanism (near the end of the History section) Also, anything you put up there, it would help if cite a source for. The bit about 1998, the WTA's own Web page testifies to. The original authors? Best if you can cite some outside documentation - something other than just you that says this is so. (Wikipedia is big on "no original research" - i.e., those who personally witnessed a thing aren't allowed just say "I saw this happen", since there are a lot of people who've given false witness. If you have evidence other than your own observations, though...) 2010/10/9 Natasha Vita-More > How about putting stating when it was originally written with a footnote > listing the authors. It is strange that whomever authored thie Wikipedia > page did not accurately state this. > > > Thanks Adrian. > > Natasha Vita-More > > > ------------------------------ > *From:* extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto: > extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On Behalf Of *Adrian Tymes > *Sent:* Saturday, October 09, 2010 11:51 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration > > On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 9:34 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > >> Yes, I agree and this is a shame. Maybe someone here can fix this at >> Wikipedia. >> >> > I've edited the two pages on Wikipedia I see it on, from "In 1999, the WTA > drafted and > adopted the Transhumanist Declaration" to "In 2002, the WTA modified and > adopted the > Transhumanist Declaration", with a reference to their site where they say > as much. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Sat Oct 9 19:17:33 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 21:17:33 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Hal Lewis' resignation from The American Physical Society In-Reply-To: <4CB0AF6A.50600@lightlink.com> References: <201010091621.o99GLBoJ011243@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4CB0AF6A.50600@lightlink.com> Message-ID: Richard, regardless of whether the consensus is real, fake or whatever, and regardless of 8-4, 9-3, 7-5 or whatever other football scores, this intense and rude reaction is completely out of place. I am inclined to think you are too emotionally and politically invested in this and, by consequence, your opinions on the scientific side of the issue should be ignored, which I am going to do. The initial messages were not rude and insulting, yours is. You deserve the BULLSHIT that you got in reply from Max, to which I will add mine. On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 8:07 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: > The LACK of a scientific consensus is only perceived by a scientifically > illiterate, politically motivated group that will use whatever dirty tricks > it can to pervert the course of normal scientific inquiry. > > Or: ?The jury is "only about 8-4 on this"? ?Bullshit. > > > > Richard Loosemore > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Oct 9 19:23:20 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 14:23:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: References: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com> <6EE3860BCB214CB5B538D982484A8345@DFC68LF1> <13596B1242EF4FF8B357896197D392E4@DFC68LF1> <3536B38612E54025836DC752862D11C3@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: 2010/10/9 Adrian Tymes : > More seriously, if you have suggested revisions like this, the end result > will probably be > better if you edit the pages directly, instead of going through a third > party (like me). Actually, Natasha's revisions have been frequently rejected in the past, even when well cited. I wonder if I can dig up some examples of this from [[Transhumanism]]. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Oct 9 19:37:47 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 12:37:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Hal Lewis' resignation from The American Physical Society In-Reply-To: References: <201010091621.o99GLBoJ011243@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 9:58 AM, spike wrote: snip > Reasoning: regardless of whether global warming is true or false, regardless > of whether it is manmade or otherwise (and I see good evidence on all sides > of these question) I have personally witnessed what looks to me like > scientific malpractice on all sides of this issue, corruption by money and > politics of a damn complicated question, claims of solid consensus on a > topic in which reasonable doubt is perfectly legitimate. > > It is perfectly OK to have a strong scientific opinion on a matter which is > not yet completely settled. Actually, Spike, it's not OK to have a strong opinion on this particular issue at all. It is a complete red herring distraction. The big problem is *energy.* It just happens that none of the long term energy solutions releases carbon, so to whatever extent that is a problem it will get fixed by a solution to the energy problem. But noooooo. People get to arguing over an issue that is immaterial when they should all be focusing on the problem that's coming sooner and is much more serious. Keith From atymes at gmail.com Sat Oct 9 19:56:06 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 12:56:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: References: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com> <6EE3860BCB214CB5B538D982484A8345@DFC68LF1> <13596B1242EF4FF8B357896197D392E4@DFC68LF1> <3536B38612E54025836DC752862D11C3@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > 2010/10/9 Adrian Tymes : > > More seriously, if you have suggested revisions like this, the end result > > will probably be > > better if you edit the pages directly, instead of going through a third > > party (like me). > > Actually, Natasha's revisions have been frequently rejected in the > past, even when well cited. I wonder if I can dig up some examples of > this from [[Transhumanism]]. > Just a hunch: they came off as promotional, especially unsourced promotional, instead of neutral description of what it is? Yeah, Wikipedia will slam that, almost every time. Fortunately, they do the same thing to those who just want to detract without evidence. Keep it to the facts, and don't try to persuade readers to follow the movement, and it'll be fine. Let the facts speak for themselves. In this case, there really is a difference in facts: when the Declaration was written, and by who. I notice that Wikpedia's main editor for the pages has already begun to rework my edits. While my specific words aren't there any more, the substance of the change - that the WTA didn't write the original Declaration, just adopted a modified form of it - remains. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Oct 9 20:01:57 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 21:01:57 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: References: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com> <6EE3860BCB214CB5B538D982484A8345@DFC68LF1> <13596B1242EF4FF8B357896197D392E4@DFC68LF1> <3536B38612E54025836DC752862D11C3@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > Actually, Natasha's revisions have been frequently rejected in the > past, even when well cited. I wonder if I can dig up some examples of > this from [[Transhumanism]]. > > The H+ site just says it was created by an international group of authors. There is a thesis pdf which quotes quite a long list of contributors, but the link it gives goes to the H+ page which doesn't mention individuals. The list is on page 261 of 273 in the list of sources. The Transhumanist Declaration Doug Bailey, Anders Sandberg, Gustavo Alves, Max More, Holger Wagner, Natasha Vita More, Eugene Leitl, Berrie Staring, David Pearce, Bill Fantegrossi, Doug Bailey Jr., den Otter, Ralf Fletcher, Kathryn Aegis, Tom Morrow, Alexander Chislenko, Lee Daniel Crocker, Darren Reynolds, Keith Elis, Thom Quinn, Mikhail Sverdlov, Arjen Kamphuis, Shane Spaulding and Nick Bostrom. 2002 Does a thesis count as a reliable source? Nick Bostrom's history says that the document was intended as a consensus view of transhumanism, so maybe there were many smaller contributors as well. BillK From atymes at gmail.com Sat Oct 9 20:11:57 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 13:11:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: References: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com> <6EE3860BCB214CB5B538D982484A8345@DFC68LF1> <13596B1242EF4FF8B357896197D392E4@DFC68LF1> <3536B38612E54025836DC752862D11C3@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 1:01 PM, BillK wrote: > Does a thesis count as a reliable source? > Cite it and see if they accept it. Note that this is not a site for promotion of people and their careers, any more than a site for promotion of anything, so the exact list of who authored the Declaration may be insufficiently relevant to an article on transhumanism itself. (If you disagree, think from the point of view of an average reader who's never heard the term before. No matter how important you'd like our people to be, if they're beside the point, they're beside the point.) Now, an article on Max More, it might be relevant to. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Oct 9 20:13:23 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 21:13:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Hal Lewis' resignation from The American Physical Society In-Reply-To: References: <201010091621.o99GLBoJ011243@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 8:37 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > Actually, Spike, it's not OK to have a strong opinion on this > particular issue at all. > > It is a complete red herring distraction. > The big problem is *energy.* > > It just happens that none of the long term energy solutions releases > carbon, so to whatever extent that is a problem it will get fixed by a > solution to the energy problem. > > But noooooo. ?People get to arguing over an issue that is immaterial > when they should all be focusing on the problem that's coming sooner > and is much more serious. > > I agree that the issue is a distraction. But the big problem (mainly for the US) is that it is a carefully planned and deliberate distraction. Big oil money was used to generate a completely fictitious protest movement to stop resources being moved into developing other energy sources. In ten or twenty years the big oil companies will have extracted every last drop of profit from the increasingly expensive oil, while at the same time diversifying into alternative energy to keep their profits flowing. Big oil needs time to take control of the alternative energy market. That's the only reason for the confusion and so-called protest movement. They don't care about anything except their profits. That's the US corporate state at work. BillK From pharos at gmail.com Sat Oct 9 21:01:29 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 22:01:29 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic Message-ID: October 9, 2010 MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. ? Anyone driving the twists of Highway 1 between San Francisco and Los Angeles recently may have glimpsed a Toyota Prius with a curious funnel-like cylinder on the roof. Harder to notice was that the person at the wheel was not actually driving. The car is a project of Google, which has been working in secret but in plain view on vehicles that can drive themselves, using artificial-intelligence software that can sense anything near the car and mimic the decisions made by a human driver. With someone behind the wheel to take control if something goes awry and a technician in the passenger seat to monitor the navigation system, seven test cars have driven 1,000 miles without human intervention and more than 140,000 miles with only occasional human control. One even drove itself down Lombard Street in San Francisco, one of the steepest and curviest streets in the nation. More info: ------------------------------ I liked the sentence: The car can be programmed for different driving personalities ? from cautious, in which it is more likely to yield to another car, to aggressive, where it is more likely to go first. Made me wonder what will happen when all the rednecks get their cars tuned up to 'very very aggressive' and 'f**k the speed limits'. :) But still, a remarkable development. BillK From brent.allsop at canonizer.com Sat Oct 9 21:44:36 2010 From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 15:44:36 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Where Consensus Fails (Was Re: Hal Lewis' resignation from The American Physical Society) In-Reply-To: <201010091856.o99IuIfu000997@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201010091856.o99IuIfu000997@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <4CB0E244.3010505@canonizer.com> Max, Thanks for pointing the 'bull shit' uselessness out and mentioning this great article "where-consensus-fails" which shows the many problems of measuring for consensus in traditional old fashioned ways. Spike and Others argued over whether it was OK to have strong opinions on such things? Of course it is OK to have strong opinions of things, including what is more important, and so on. What would really help (especially to help when people, especially the majority, have immoral or incorrect value judgments which need correcting) is simply better communication, as in our ability to know just what everyone (and the experts - some are better than others) believes and why (i.e. what camp they are in, without having to listen to them for days). And a system to help those that know the majority is wrong, to collaboratively work together to first know why the majority is wrong and to work collaboratively to educate everyone about such, or at a very minimum, more effectively communicate that they believe such to be the case and why. And of course, scientific consensus is just that, a rigorous measure of what the moral or scientific experts believe. It is certainly not absolute truth, as scientific consensus constantly fluctuates. What is critically important is rigorously measuring this as it happens so that nobodies 'bull shit' statement can doubt any such existence of consensus or what the experts currently agree on. The moral expert and scientific consensus survey system being developed at canonizer.com has none of the problem mentioned in the "where consensus fails" article. You know concisely exactly what all participators believe or want to say and why, Just by knowing what camp they are in, without having to read and tally testimonials from each and every participant. And, as new scientific data comes in, falsifying various theories, you can know such is definitively being falsified to the degree people are abandoning finally falsified camps. An example topic being the very controversial theories of consciousness field. Everyone thinks that anyone that makes any claims in this theoretical field will result in nothing but gazillions of people yelling "bullshit" to all such. Everyone falsely thinks there is no expert consensus at all, as the tentative early surprising results forming around the expert consensus "Representational Qualia Theory" camp (see: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6 ) is starting to show. Already leading experts such as Lehar, Haeroff, Chalmers, Edwards... are participating, and as this survey becomes every more comprehensive, it is becoming ever more clear that we are already well on our way to achieving a scientific consensus around a concise description what the subjective mind is and how it works - with only a few minor details or competing predictions (as in functional property dualism vs material property dualism?) of just what qualia are to be finally demonstrated or falsified by science. No other theory by anyone has yet to form any more consensus than one or two individuals in comparison to "Representational Qualia Theory" which continues to increase its lead of more than half of all participators supporting it. Hopefully, now that everyone can know, definitively, how much consensus there is, people will finally realize what it means to 'eff the ineffable' which I believe will finally lead to the greatest scientific discovery of all time. It's all a matter of good, concise, and quantitative communication, so the signal, when it is there, can definitively stand out sooner from all the many yelling 'bull shit' recursively add infinitem, and when it isn't there, so we can at least easily know where everyone currently stands and why till science proves some of us wrong. Brent Allsop On 10/9/2010 12:56 PM, Max More wrote: > >> The LACK of a scientific consensus is only perceived by a scientifically >> illiterate, politically motivated group that will use whatever dirty >> tricks it can to pervert the course of normal scientific inquiry. >> >> Or: The jury is "only about 8-4 on this"? Bullshit. > > Bullshit to your bullshit. (There, see how helpful that kind of > response is.) > > More specifically, and for instance: > > http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/09/25/where-consensus-fails/ > > I'm currently reading about the great flaws in another "consensus", > this one to do with the causes of obesity and diet-related health > issues: Gary Taubes, Good Calories, Bad Calories. One emblem of this > is the Government's official Food Guide Pyramid -- another damaging > area of flawed official position. > > Max > > > > ------------------------------------- > Max More, Ph.D. > Strategic Philosopher > Co-editor, The Transhumanist Reader > The Proactionary Project > Vice Chair, Humanity+ > Extropy Institute Founder > www.maxmore.com > max at maxmore.com > ------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Oct 9 22:05:33 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 15:05:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Hal Lewis' resignation from The American Physical Society In-Reply-To: <201010091856.o99IuIfu000997@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201010091856.o99IuIfu000997@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Max More wrote: snip > I'm currently reading about the great flaws in another "consensus", this one > to do with the causes of obesity and diet-related health issues: Gary > Taubes, Good Calories, Bad Calories. One emblem of this is the Government's > official Food Guide Pyramid -- another damaging area of flawed official > position. I had no idea *anyone* paid attention to the pyramid. When it came out, or for that matter when the previous one came out, was there any noticeable chance in what people ate? Keith From spike66 at att.net Sat Oct 9 22:48:29 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 15:48:29 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Where Consensus Fails (Was Re: Hal Lewis' resignation from The American Physical Society) In-Reply-To: <4CB0E244.3010505@canonizer.com> References: <201010091856.o99IuIfu000997@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <4CB0E244.3010505@canonizer.com> Message-ID: <365316.45491.qm@web81504.mail.mud.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- From: Brent Allsop brent.allsop at canonizer.com ... >Spike and Others argued over whether it was OK to have strong opinions on such >things?? Of course it is OK to have strong opinions of things, including what is >more important...Brent Allsop Ja thanks bud.? When one has strong opinions about such things, one must guard against projection, or assuming every reasonable and honest person must agree. Brent, a?religion you may know something about has a meme that goes something like "If?you are an honest godly person, when you hear this message you will get heartburn."? Or something like that.? {8^D? I get the feeling the really convinced AGW crowd has?their?version of that meme. Just this week, the Brits landed in the news for creating public service messages in which global-warming-denying schoolchildren are slain by their teachers.? I saw the messages on YouTube, and they are revolting indeed, with plenty of gore (lower case g, not Al.)? http://www.youtube.com/verify_age?next_url=http%3A//www.youtube.com/watch%3Fv%3DEswTo4iNEhY Those?who made the videos?explained they thought it was supposed to be funny.? Even with my own very open minded sense of humor, the only thing I found funny about them is that anyone would think of them as funny. I can think of no other areas in scientific discourse which has resulted in anything analogous to this kind of thing. spike From spike66 at att.net Sat Oct 9 22:56:57 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (Gregory Jones) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 15:56:57 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <366502.4544.qm@web81505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> From: BillK pharos at gmail.com >...I liked the sentence:? The car can be programmed for different driving >personalities ? ...Made me wonder what will happen when all the rednecks get >their cars tuned up to 'very very aggressive' and 'f**k the speed limits'.? :)...BillK BillK, that isn't rednecks who drive like that.??Perhaps you were thinking of?BMW drivers?? Rednecks would be more likely to take their time, wave to oncoming pickup trucks from their pickup trucks, spit a chaw of terbacker, being careful to not get any on their?huntin'?rifles?hanging on a rack in the back winder. spike From max at maxmore.com Sun Oct 10 00:59:01 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Sat, 09 Oct 2010 19:59:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Food Guide Pyramid and dietary consensus [Was: Re: Hal Lewis' resignation from The American Physical Society] Message-ID: <201010100059.o9A0x5GP013205@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Yes, there has been a substantial increase in the proportion of calories coming from carbohydrates, especially sugars and refined carbs. It's not clear whether the Food Guide caused this change, or merely accompanied it. But it seems that 90% of the increase in calories came from carbs, and carbs accounted for a growing proportion of total calories starting around the late 1970s or early 1980s. At the same time, also in accordance with official guidelines, the percentage of diet accounted for by fat declined. Yet obesity rose rapidly. Apart from the cites in Taube's book, you can see the same info here: "Most of these extra calories came from an increase in carbohydrate consumption rather than fat consumption." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obesity#cite_note-73 Max > > I'm currently reading about the great flaws in another "consensus", > > this one to do with the causes of obesity and diet-related health > > issues: Gary Taubes, Good Calories, Bad Calories. One emblem of this > > is the Government's official Food Guide Pyramid -- another damaging > > area of flawed official position. > >I had no idea *anyone* paid attention to the pyramid. When it came >out, or for that matter when the previous one came out, was there >any noticeable chance in what people ate? From spike66 at att.net Sun Oct 10 01:41:59 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 18:41:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7056530203B343299A4F2234087C57B5@spike> > ...On Behalf Of BillK > Subject: [ExI] Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic > > October 9, 2010 > > MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. - Anyone driving the twists of > Highway 1 between San Francisco and Los Angeles recently may > have glimpsed a Toyota Prius with a curious funnel-like > cylinder on the roof. Harder to notice was that the person at > the wheel was not actually driving. > > > > The car is a project of Google... BillK I saw this thing! It was a few weeks ago, when I was on a motorcycle ride over on the coast. Wondered what the heck it was, didn't notice that the prole behind the wheel wasn't steering. {8^D Agreed this is wicked cool. Hope they get it working soon, for a reason completely unrelated to having a robo-designated driver. If a car runs itself with no human input, we proles would be much more tolerant of lower acceleration rates. You don't even notice that an elevator accelerates slowly, or a bus. But if you are at the wheel personally, it makes you crazy if the detroit responds only leisurely to your command to go. If we increase our tolerance of lower acceleration, it allows smaller and less thirsty IC engines, allows hybrids to carry fewer batteries, making it lighter. Lower acceleration results in lower torque requirements on the frame, which makes it still lighter. We can build a car which will get 100 mpg (2.3 liters per 100 km) if we tolerate low acceleration which would be OK if a computer is driving. If the computer is driving, you can be napping or reading a book, and would scarcely notice the enraged proles stacking up behind you with murderous looks on their faces. We need to also develop robo-return-fire. spike From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Oct 10 01:57:27 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 20:57:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: References: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com><6EE3860BCB214CB5B538D982484A8345@DFC68LF1><13596B1242EF4FF8B357896197D392E4@DFC68LF1><3536B38612E54025836DC752862D11C3@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: <1288BF59D4F14E559E78C0444A8274E3@DFC68LF1> Interesting. Thank you. I don't think this currently counts as a reliable source because there is no date in the reference and the referential link does not mirror the document's reference. It was probably authentic before the reference material on the link's website was removed. I am not familiar with Nick's history. I am not sure if he did enough research on modern transhumanism. I do think his account of the historical influences on transhumanism in wider, philosophical perspective is rich and meaningful. Riley Jones and Russell Blackford also have substantial histories. Best, Natasha Natasha Vita-More -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Saturday, October 09, 2010 3:02 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 8:23 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > Actually, Natasha's revisions have been frequently rejected in the > past, even when well cited. I wonder if I can dig up some examples of > this from [[Transhumanism]]. > > The H+ site just says it was created by an international group of authors. There is a thesis pdf which quotes quite a long list of contributors, but the link it gives goes to the H+ page which doesn't mention individuals. The list is on page 261 of 273 in the list of sources. The Transhumanist Declaration Doug Bailey, Anders Sandberg, Gustavo Alves, Max More, Holger Wagner, Natasha Vita More, Eugene Leitl, Berrie Staring, David Pearce, Bill Fantegrossi, Doug Bailey Jr., den Otter, Ralf Fletcher, Kathryn Aegis, Tom Morrow, Alexander Chislenko, Lee Daniel Crocker, Darren Reynolds, Keith Elis, Thom Quinn, Mikhail Sverdlov, Arjen Kamphuis, Shane Spaulding and Nick Bostrom. 2002 Does a thesis count as a reliable source? Nick Bostrom's history says that the document was intended as a consensus view of transhumanism, so maybe there were many smaller contributors as well. BillK _______________________________________________ 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 Oct 10 07:59:03 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 08:59:03 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic In-Reply-To: <366502.4544.qm@web81505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <366502.4544.qm@web81505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 11:56 PM, Gregory Jones wrote: > > BillK, that isn't rednecks who drive like that.??Perhaps you were thinking > of?BMW drivers?? Rednecks would be more likely to take their time, wave to > oncoming pickup trucks from their pickup trucks, spit a chaw of terbacker, being > careful to not get any on their?huntin'?rifles?hanging on a rack in the back > winder. > > Agreed. I was thinking of the Dukes of Hazzard. :) In the UK if a BMW is seen driving inside the speed limit it gets a mention on the daily news. BillK From ablainey at aol.com Sun Oct 10 13:52:33 2010 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 09:52:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration In-Reply-To: <13596B1242EF4FF8B357896197D392E4@DFC68LF1> References: <20101008140755.epqp3lwedc40c4kc@webmail.creationstorm.com><6EE3860BCB214CB5B538D982484A8345@DFC68LF1> <13596B1242EF4FF8B357896197D392E4@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: <8CD369985AF72E3-1660-18BDE@webmail-d023.sysops.aol.com> I must have copies of those early days somewhere in my stack of archive cd's. Not promising anything, but i'll have a dig around. r.i.p Sasha :o( A -----Original Message----- From: Natasha Vita-More To: 'ExI chat list' Sent: Sat, Oct 9, 2010 5:34 pm Subject: Re: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration Yes, I agree and this is a shame. Maybe someone here can fix this at Wikipedia. My records show these folks as the original authors of the Transhumanist Declaration: Alexander Chislenko, Max More, Eugene Leitl, Natasha Vita-More, Bernie Staring, Anders Sandberg, David Pearce, Doug Baily Jr., Kathryn Aegis, Lee Daniel Crocker, Darren Reynolds, Arjen Kamphuis Natasha Vita-More - -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Oct 10 14:06:34 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 09:06:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Hal Lewis' resignation from The American Physical Society In-Reply-To: References: <201010091621.o99GLBoJ011243@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: BillK wrote: "That's the US corporate state at work." I don't agree. This "state of work" represents a behavior of some corporations in the US or elsewhere. N From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Oct 10 14:18:52 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 09:18:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Google Cars Drive Themselves, in Traffic In-Reply-To: <366502.4544.qm@web81505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <366502.4544.qm@web81505.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6375CE3048F94254A35FEF4BAA0BE664@DFC68LF1> Spike wrote: From: BillK pharos at gmail.com >...I liked the sentence:? The car can be programmed for different >driving personalities ? ...Made me wonder what will happen when all the >rednecks get their cars tuned up to 'very very aggressive' and 'f**k the speed limits'. > :)...BillK "BillK, that isn't rednecks who drive like that.??Perhaps you were thinking of?BMW drivers?? Rednecks would be more likely to take their time, wave to oncoming pickup trucks from their pickup trucks, spit a chaw of terbacker, being careful to not get any on their?huntin'?rifles?hanging on a rack in the back winder." Yup. These uneducated,unsophisticated stereotype of poor southern white people is funny but they worked hard to get their red necks. What is interesting is that they were once referred to as "wool hat boys" and in modern hiphop culture, including some gang rap culture, the woll hat as a anti-establishment statement, often considered to be stylish. What is really syle-savvy is the redneck joke-monger Jeff Foxworthy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9ZZieKPesw In his youth: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCIYHVWt_DA&feature=related N From pharos at gmail.com Sun Oct 10 14:42:06 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 15:42:06 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Hal Lewis' resignation from The American Physical Society In-Reply-To: References: <201010091621.o99GLBoJ011243@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > BillK wrote: > > "That's the US corporate state at work." > > I don't agree. ?This "state of work" represents a behavior of some > corporations in the US or elsewhere. > > You're quite entitled to disagree, of course. :) But if you don't see that the US government has been taken over by the corporations so that the main function of government is to work to benefit the corporations, then you won't see a solution to the current US problems either. In other democratic countries the wholesale capture of the government by corporations has not (yet) happened to anywhere near the same extent. Money talks far more in the US than elsewhere. BillK From natasha at natasha.cc Sun Oct 10 15:08:56 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 10:08:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Hal Lewis' resignation from The American Physical Society In-Reply-To: References: <201010091621.o99GLBoJ011243@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <582480DB98A34660861663282610A607@DFC68LF1> Yes, money talks far more in the US than most countries. And yes, the government bows to many corporate needs. But I wouldn't say that the US government has been taken over by corporations and that the main function of the US government is to work to benefit corporations. There is more to this story than you present. I have little patience sweeping statements. But I am a terrible email typist and I apologize for misquoting you "state of work" rather than "state at work", so maybe I ought not be bothered by sweeping statements, but I am. N Natasha Vita-More -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Sunday, October 10, 2010 9:42 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Hal Lewis' resignation from The American Physical Society On Sun, Oct 10, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > BillK wrote: > > "That's the US corporate state at work." > > I don't agree. ?This "state of work" represents a behavior of some > corporations in the US or elsewhere. > > You're quite entitled to disagree, of course. :) But if you don't see that the US government has been taken over by the corporations so that the main function of government is to work to benefit the corporations, then you won't see a solution to the current US problems either. In other democratic countries the wholesale capture of the government by corporations has not (yet) happened to anywhere near the same extent. Money talks far more in the US than elsewhere. BillK _______________________________________________ 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 Oct 10 15:47:04 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 10 Oct 2010 11:47:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Hal Lewis' resignation from The American Physical Society In-Reply-To: References: <201010091856.o99IuIfu000997@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 6:05 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Sat, Oct 9, 2010 at 11:56 AM, Max More wrote: > > snip > >> I'm currently reading about the great flaws in another "consensus", this one >> to do with the causes of obesity and diet-related health issues: Gary >> Taubes, Good Calories, Bad Calories. One emblem of this is the Government's >> official Food Guide Pyramid -- another damaging area of flawed official >> position. > > I had no idea *anyone* paid attention to the pyramid. ?When it came > out, or for that matter when the previous one came out, was there any > noticeable chance in what people ate? For the typical consumer, probably not. For the children in public schools there would be a natural constraint on their choices for lunch based on the government-sanctioned food schedule. Remember the debate about whether tomato is a fruit or a vegetable for the sake of whether ketchup could be considered a serving of veg? I think the government food guides will also dictate which products qualify for financial assistance and to what degree. But for the majority of financially independent gluttons, the food pyramid has little/no influence. From max at maxmore.com Mon Oct 11 12:57:29 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 07:57:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] SpaceShipTwo flies free for first time Message-ID: <201010111257.o9BCvc1n022158@andromeda.ziaspace.com> http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/10/10/5266767-spaceshiptwo-flies-free-for-first-time From giulio at gmail.com Mon Oct 11 14:33:10 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 16:33:10 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Aubrey de Grey at TransVision 2010 on SENS and SENS Foundation: recent progress Message-ID: Aubrey de Grey will give a talk at TransVision 2010 on SENS and SENS Foundation. http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/aubrey-de-grey-at-transvision-2010-on-sens-and-sens-foundation-recent-progress/ Abstract: It is now ten years since the first workshop was held to discuss the counterintuitive possibility that reversing aging ? comprehensive, bona fide rejuvenation of the human body ? might be a more achievable medical goal than merely slowing aging down. This approach, which essentially amounts to the application of regenerative medicine to aging, has now gained widespread respect within the relevant expert scientific communities, and experimental work to make it a reality is proceeding at an ever-accelerating pace. SENS Foundation is spearheading this effort, with an emphasis on the most challenging components of it (which are the ones in most danger of being neglected by other funding sources). In my talk, I will report on our recent progress in this work. Aubrey de Grey is a biomedical gerontologist, and the Chief Science Officer of the SENS Foundation. The central goal of Aubrey de Grey?s work is the expedition of developing a true cure for human aging. TransVision 2010 is a global transhumanist conference and community convention. The event will take place on October 22, 23 and 24, 2010 in Milan, Italy with many options for remote online access. http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/ Register now http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/registration/ post links to Twitter, your blogs and websites, and add your name to the TransVision 2010 Facebook page. From spike66 at att.net Mon Oct 11 15:29:21 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 08:29:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] SpaceShipTwo flies free for first time In-Reply-To: <201010111257.o9BCvc1n022158@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201010111257.o9BCvc1n022158@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Woohooo! Good luck Virgin Galactic! {8-] spike > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Max More > Sent: Monday, October 11, 2010 5:57 AM > To: Extropy-Chat > Subject: [ExI] SpaceShipTwo flies free for first time > > > http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/10/10/5266767-spaces hiptwo-flies-free-for-first-time > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From giulio at gmail.com Mon Oct 11 18:18:37 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 20:18:37 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Max Hodak on Brain-machine interfacing: current work and future directions, Teleplace, October 17, 10am PST Message-ID: Max Hodak on Brain-machine interfacing: current work and future directions, Teleplace, October 17, 10am PST http://telexlr8.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/max-hodak-on-brain-machine-interfacing-current-work-and-future-directions-teleplace-october-17-10am-pst/ http://www.carboncopies.org/asim-experts-series-brain-machine-interfacing-current-work-and-future-directions-max-hodak Max Hodak will give an ASIM Expert Series talk in Teleplace on ?Brain-machine interfacing: current work and future directions? on Sunday October 17, 2010, at 10am PST (1pm EST, 6pm UK, 7pm CET). Those who already have Teleplace accounts for teleXLR8 can just ahow up at the talk. There are a limited number of seats available for others, please contact Giulio Prisco if you wish to attend. Abstract: Fluid, two-way brain-machine interfacing represents one of the greatest challenges of modern bioengineering. It offers the potential to restore movement and speech to the locked-in, and ultimately allow us as humans to expand far beyond the biological limits we?re encased in now. But, there?s a long road ahead. Today, noninvasive BMIs are largely useless as practical devices and invasive BMIs are critically limited, though progress is being made everyday. Microwire array recording is used all over the world to decode motor intent out of cortex to drive robotic actuators and software controls. Electrical intracortical microstimulation is used to ?write? information to the brain, and optogenetic methods promise to make that easier and safer. Monkey models can perform tasks from controlling a walking robot to feeding themselves with a 7-DOF robotic arm. Before we?ll be able to make the jump to humans, biocompatibility of electrodes and limited channel counts are significant hurdles that will need to be crossed. These technologies are still in their infancy, but they?re a huge opportunity in science for those motivated to help bring them through to maturity. Max Hodak is a scientist-in-training working on brain-machine interfacing at Duke. He founded Quantios to use computing, machine learning to improve life. American, French dual citizen. Teleplace is one of the best 3D applications for telework, online meetings, group collaboration, and e-learning in a virtual 3D environment (v-learning). Those who already have Teleplace accounts for teleXLR8 can just ahow up at the talk. There are a limited number of seats available for others, please contact Giulio Prisco if you wish to attend. From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Oct 11 22:10:12 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:10:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] StratoSolar Message-ID: StratoSolar This is off NDA so I can go into detail. For a few years, I was working on a way to reduce the cost of space-based solar power to the point it could displace fossil fuels. That's two cents or less per kWh, which is half the price of electric power from coal, and low enough that (off peak) it can be used to make synthetic hydrocarbon transport fuels for about a dollar a gallon. The rough economic analysis is based on a ten-year repayment of capital cost. Run 80,000 hours in ten years the return is $800 per kW per penny payment for a kWh. For power satellites, assuming 5kg/kW, $100 per kg lifted to GEO and about 1/3 of the cost going to transport, you get the required $1600/kW for 2 cents per kWh. With the help of Jordin Kare, Howard Davidson, Ron Clark, Spike Jones and others, by last January I had a proposal that looked like it would reach $100/kg cost to GEO. The general approach was discussed in an article in The Oil Drum about a year ago. It proposes huge lasers to get the average exhaust velocity up to the mission velocity. This gives a mass ratio to LEO of about 3 and a throughput to GEO upwards of 100 t per hour. Late last year Howard became aware of a project an old friend of his, Ed Kelly, was working on. Ed is best known as a principal with Transmeta, a company that developed low-power processors some years ago. Howard introduced me to Ed. I have spent a lot of time going over Ed's spreadsheets and other details since last January. In the post-analysis, the reason ordinary ground solar power is so expensive is the huge amount of materials that are needed because solar energy is so dilute. (Wind has the same problem.) Ed's approach, which he named StratoSolar, was to reduce the mass from hundreds of kg per kW to a few tens of kg by moving the solar concentrator into the stratosphere as a large, lightweight, buoyant structure. This has significant advantages over being on the ground. There are no clouds at 20 km. The winds are light and steady and the low air density reduces the force on the structure. Because the primary concentrator can be pointed directly toward the sun, it gives close to full power whenever the sun is above the horizon. (Rough pointing--one to two degrees--can be done with combinations of thrusters, aerodynamic fins and reaction motors, fine pointing by stepper motors moving the mirror segments.) They work as far north as Stockholm. The concentrated sunlight gets to the ground via a hollow light pipe lined with highly reflective prismatic plastic. Preliminary optimization for kg/kW leads to a 30-meter diameter light pipe with less than 10% loss. A larger pipe has lower losses but uses more total material per kW. Because the mass is dependent on the pipe diameter and the power capacity on the area, StratoSolar plants optimize in large sizes, around 1 GW. That means the primary collector is a bit over 2 km in diameter and 100-200 meters thick. That gives plenty of room for gasbags to offset its weight. While the concentrator has neutral buoyancy, the light pipe has a lot of excess buoyancy. If you just think about it as a force diagram, the buoyancy needs to be 3-4 times the wind force to keep the angle the light pipe makes with the ground within 15-20 degrees of vertical. The materials required?aluminum, plastic, steel wire, and hydrogen (for buoyancy)?are all inexpensive and do not need to be processed to tighter specifications than the norm for commercial products. The sunlight is absorbed and converted to heat at the bottom. The heat is used to run an ordinary, 45%-60%-efficient, one or two stage power plant. About half the heat during the day is used to heat a solid heat thermal storage medium. This will provide enough stored heat to run the plant overnight. Graphite is a good choice, but any high temperature solid would work. Cowper blast furnace stoves (regenerators, dating from 1837) produce air as hot as 1400 deg C, just about the limit for turbine inlet temperature. While stoves for this application are big (typically 70,000 cubic meters), they are dead simple and should cost well under $100 million for a GW plant. That cost adds 1/8 of a cent per kWh to the cost of power. This is less than 1/10th the cost of any other proposed storage mechanism. Our rough estimate for the cost is around $1.2 B per GW, or $1200 per kW. Using the above ten-year payback, the cost to generate power should be around 1.5 cents per kWh. It will take building a few to learn how to manufacture them and get accurate cost numbers. However, if this is close, it will solve the long-term energy problems and get the human race off fossil fuels by simply under pricing them. Like any other large project, there are a million details. We have given thought to such topics as ozone, lightning, hydrogen fires, thunderstorms, icing, interaction with aircraft, high wind loads, aerodynamic shrouds, UV damage, turbine throttling, maintenance access, and manufacturing (to name those I can think of at the moment). Of course, with only a few people working on it, the models are not very detailed yet. You can find a PowerPoint presentation if you Google for StratoSolar. There is a Web site, but the content is not yet up. For those with a serious interest, there is a 50-page technical tutorial available. Since the 1970s, US politicians have given lip service to "National Energy Self-sufficiency." The US has failed to achieve anything, largely because nobody had a good idea of how to make it work at the same or lower cost than importing oil. This method might not work either. However, it passes first-order physics and economics analysis and seems to deserve serious further study. Keith Henson From atymes at gmail.com Mon Oct 11 22:26:55 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:26:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] StratoSolar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Since we're off NDA, I can say this openly: You need a much smaller scale pilot project. Your initial $ needed before you can demonstrate first principles are too high to attract funding before you've bent any metal. (Which is a concern many would-be funders have: even if your idea works, do you have the organization to actually produce something if they invest? The only way to prove this for sure is to have actually built something...) On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > StratoSolar > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Oct 11 22:36:07 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:36:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] StratoSolar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CB39157.4020705@satx.rr.com> On 10/11/2010 5:10 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > The concentrated sunlight gets to the ground via a hollow light pipe > lined with highly reflective prismatic plastic. Interesting idea, although it does seem pretty brittle/fragile/breakable under simple assault. Maybe call the light pipes "lipes" for short? Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Oct 11 22:44:03 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 17:44:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] StratoSolar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CB39333.104@satx.rr.com> On 10/11/2010 5:26 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > You need a much smaller scale pilot project. Your initial $ needed > before you can demonstrate first principles are too high to attract > funding before you've bent any metal. I wonder if Robert Bigelow might come on board (or take over)? His Genesis modules might be halfway there. Damien Broderick From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Oct 11 22:50:30 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:50:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] StratoSolar In-Reply-To: <4CB39157.4020705@satx.rr.com> References: <4CB39157.4020705@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 3:36 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 10/11/2010 5:10 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >> >> The concentrated sunlight gets to the ground via a hollow light pipe >> lined with highly reflective prismatic plastic. > > Interesting idea, although it does seem pretty brittle/fragile/breakable > under simple assault. It's 30 meters in diameter and made of the same kind of plastic on the outside as the roof at the Denver Airport. The current design has 93 square inches of steel wire in it. A fighter jet would ruin it (and the jet) but it is not fragile. Keith > Maybe call the light pipes "lipes" for short? > > Damien Broderick > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Oct 11 22:54:50 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:54:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] StratoSolar In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/10/11 Adrian Tymes : > Since we're off NDA, I can say this openly: > > You need a much smaller scale pilot project. I didn't talk about our pilot plans at all. Can't put everything in or it gets to book length. > Your initial $ needed > before you can demonstrate first principles are too high to attract > funding before you've bent any metal.? (Which is a concern many > would-be funders have: even if your idea works, do you have the > organization to actually produce something if they invest?? The only > way to prove this for sure is to have actually built something...) You might look up how much money Transmeta raised. Keith > On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 3:10 PM, Keith Henson > wrote: >> >> StratoSolar >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Oct 11 23:06:45 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 18:06:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] StratoSolar In-Reply-To: References: <4CB39157.4020705@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CB39885.7080405@satx.rr.com> On 10/11/2010 5:50 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >> > Interesting idea, although it does seem pretty brittle/fragile/breakable >> > under simple assault. > > It's 30 meters in diameter and made of the same kind of plastic on the > outside as the roof at the Denver Airport. The current design has 93 > square inches of steel wire in it. A fighter jet would ruin it (and > the jet) but it is not fragile. I was thinking of a ground-launched missile. From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Oct 12 01:16:33 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:16:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] StratoSolar In-Reply-To: <4CB39885.7080405@satx.rr.com> References: <4CB39157.4020705@satx.rr.com> <4CB39885.7080405@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 7:06 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 10/11/2010 5:50 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >>> >>> > ?Interesting idea, although it does seem pretty >>> > brittle/fragile/breakable >>> > ?under simple assault. >> >> It's 30 meters in diameter and made of the same kind of plastic on the >> outside as the roof at the Denver Airport. ?The current design has 93 >> square inches of steel wire in it. ?A fighter jet would ruin it (and >> the jet) but it is not fragile. > > I was thinking of a ground-launched missile. Seriously? How many existing power production facilities regularly take missile strikes? Of course there's 'terrorism' as a big picture problem. Usually men with guns are enough to stop the dumber terrorists. I think men (and women) with expensive technology take care of the smarter terrorists. After they're in production long enough to bring the costs down, Churches can fund purchases for impoverished nations to have clean power the same way they fund wells for clean water. Isn't ExI supposed to be a list full of optimists? Or at least realists who are relatively positive? If you see problems, propose solutions. From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Oct 12 02:14:12 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:14:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] StratoSolar In-Reply-To: <4CB39885.7080405@satx.rr.com> References: <4CB39157.4020705@satx.rr.com> <4CB39885.7080405@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: If you wanted to do damage and *had* a missile, the generator would be a much more effective target. Keith On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 4:06 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 10/11/2010 5:50 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >>> >>> > ?Interesting idea, although it does seem pretty >>> > brittle/fragile/breakable >>> > ?under simple assault. >> >> It's 30 meters in diameter and made of the same kind of plastic on the >> outside as the roof at the Denver Airport. ?The current design has 93 >> square inches of steel wire in it. ?A fighter jet would ruin it (and >> the jet) but it is not fragile. > > I was thinking of a ground-launched missile. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Oct 12 02:39:27 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 19:39:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] My H+ review of the PBS program, "FutureStates" Message-ID: R.U. Sirius contacted me and requested a short write-up about the new PBS online series about America's future. I was honored to oblige such a legendary editor and this is the end result... http://www.hplusmagazine.com/editors-blog/futurestates-online-tv-show-deals-interesting-stuff John : ) From spike66 at att.net Tue Oct 12 04:02:40 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:02:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] teamwork on a gag for h+ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Some comedy routines can easily be adapted to a team of writers, such as Dave Letterman's top 10. He can get 30 guys writing gags, then Dave can pick his favorites. I thought of a comedy script we could write. It starts out like this: Hey cool! You have seen those online translation sites, like babelfish, where you type in a word or a phrase, and it translates it to or from another language, ja? That gave me an idea. I wrote a program that translates between English and Transhumanish! For instance, I entered: "Hi How RU?" and asked it to translate to Transhumanish. It came back with "The singularity is near." Then I put in "{8^D" in Transhumanish, asked for the English equivalent. It came back with "Spike thinks he made a witty comment. The silly goof is mistaken of course." So then I put in "[Exi-chat types, help me here]" and it came back with "[Exi-chat types, help me here]" I will collect the best ones and offer them to H+ magazine, offering you in return the standard reward, everlasting respect and high esteem, etc. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Oct 12 04:47:43 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 23:47:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] My H+ review of the PBS program, "FutureStates" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CB3E86F.2030303@satx.rr.com> On 10/11/2010 9:39 PM, John Grigg wrote: > R.U. Sirius contacted me and requested a short write-up about the new > PBS online series about America's future. I was honored to oblige > such a legendary editor and this is the end result... Yeah, but who is this "John Griggs" of whom they speak? From spike66 at att.net Tue Oct 12 04:59:44 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 11 Oct 2010 21:59:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] kennita watson In-Reply-To: <4CB3E86F.2030303@satx.rr.com> References: <4CB3E86F.2030303@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <180094AF0AB340189951DF10708469DB@spike> For Taxifornia voters, you may have noticed our own local Extropian lass Kennita Watson is on the ballot for state board of equalization. I have no idea what a state board of equalization does. Perhaps they equalize. Or something, but in any case, those of you who do the local SF Bay area tranhumanist-singularity-extropian scene may have met her, and will likely agree with me that she is a most kind and good person, smart, capable, worthy of our vote and our moral support. She may equalize me any time she wishes. Whatever that is. Exi types do vote, early and often. spike From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Oct 12 08:08:21 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 01:08:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] My H+ review of the PBS program, "FutureStates" In-Reply-To: <4CB3E86F.2030303@satx.rr.com> References: <4CB3E86F.2030303@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: I have spent my whole life telling people, "there is no letter S at the end of my name! LOL John Grigg On 10/11/10, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 10/11/2010 9:39 PM, John Grigg wrote: > >> R.U. Sirius contacted me and requested a short write-up about the new >> PBS online series about America's future. I was honored to oblige >> such a legendary editor and this is the end result... > > Yeah, but who is this "John Griggs" of whom they speak? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From ablainey at aol.com Tue Oct 12 09:23:54 2010 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 05:23:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] TransDisabled [WAS:Transhumanist Declaration] In-Reply-To: <427C4F6CA45347EEA29DBED561E77349@DFC68LF1> References: <8CD352EA01FB8B9-D04-A5FE@webmail-d036.sysops.aol.com> <427C4F6CA45347EEA29DBED561E77349@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: <8CD380653573C82-5E4-EFC@webmail-d073.sysops.aol.com> Sorry no good links (Coming soon). Likewise I see it as an act of kindness, empathy and basic humanity and that was really what I meant by 'moral obligation'. I am trying to square up my own direction as I have real problems working on projects that might elevate the able bodied further above those with disability. Thinking about having superhuman senses, abilities and life span while others suffer to have 'normal' levels of the aforementioned makes my heart sink. I hate most of the terminology relating to disabled people, even the term disabled seems derogatory. I fully agree we all have disabilities, I myself am colour blind, dyslexic, have arthritis, shot knees and a herniated disk and that's before the myriad of mental oddities ;o) Just a crisis of conscience making me re-evaluate things. A -----Original Message----- From: Natasha Vita-More To: 'ExI chat list' Sent: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 15:05 Subject: Re: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration Do you have a link to the work you have been doing? People with disabilities are not subhuman, they are human. We all have disabilities to some degree and unfortunately some people have them to a large degree. I do not think we have a moral obligation to improve the disabilities of humans before a transhuman, posthuman or upload (TPU)obtains radical prolongevity. Those with disabilities who are unable to make the distinction concerning enhancement ought to be protected by a right to have their disabilities cured to a human level and then they can make their own choices about TPU. I consider this action to be a "humane act of awareness/consciousness/kindness to other people" rather than a "moral obligation". best, N Natasha Vita-More -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Oct 12 17:11:10 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 12:11:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] TransDisabled [WAS:Transhumanist Declaration] In-Reply-To: <8CD380653573C82-5E4-EFC@webmail-d073.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD352EA01FB8B9-D04-A5FE@webmail-d036.sysops.aol.com><427C4F6CA45347EEA29DBED561E77349@DFC68LF1> <8CD380653573C82-5E4-EFC@webmail-d073.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <1D562C0FAB6C45BB9AB2E8C805D61ADC@DFC68LF1> I don't think any of us with disabilities favor the term "disabled". But I look at it this way: as long as we are human, we disabled by the inability to overcome disease. Is there a better term? Natasha Vita-More _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ablainey at aol.com Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 4:24 AM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [ExI] TransDisabled [WAS:Transhumanist Declaration] Sorry no good links (Coming soon). Likewise I see it as an act of kindness, empathy and basic humanity and that was really what I meant by 'moral obligation'. I am trying to square up my own direction as I have real problems working on projects that might elevate the able bodied further above those with disability. Thinking about having superhuman senses, abilities and life span while others suffer to have 'normal' levels of the aforementioned makes my heart sink. I hate most of the terminology relating to disabled people, even the term disabled seems derogatory. I fully agree we all have disabilities, I myself am colour blind, dyslexic, have arthritis, shot knees and a herniated disk and that's before the myriad of mental oddities ;o) Just a crisis of conscience making me re-evaluate things. A -----Original Message----- From: Natasha Vita-More To: 'ExI chat list' Sent: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 15:05 Subject: Re: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration Do you have a link to the work you have been doing? People with disabilities are not subhuman, they are human. We all have disabilities to some degree and unfortunately some people have them to a large degree. I do not think we have a moral obligation to improve the disabilities of humans before a transhuman, posthuman or upload (TPU)obtains radical prolongevity. Those with disabilities who are unable to make the distinction concerning enhancement ought to be protected by a right to have their disabilities cured to a human level and then they can make their own choices about TPU. I consider this action to be a "humane act of awareness/consciousness/kindness to other people" rather than a "moral obligation". best, N Natasha Vita-More -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue Oct 12 20:00:51 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:00:51 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] kennita watson In-Reply-To: <180094AF0AB340189951DF10708469DB@spike> References: <4CB3E86F.2030303@satx.rr.com> <180094AF0AB340189951DF10708469DB@spike> Message-ID: <402639.55998.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I think you'd get a good idea of what they do from their site: http://www.boe.ca.gov/ It sounds like the only good she can do there would be to block everything they do. Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ---- From: spike To: ExI chat list Sent: Tue, October 12, 2010 12:59:44 AM Subject: [ExI] kennita watson For Taxifornia voters, you may have noticed our own local Extropian lass Kennita Watson is on the ballot for state board of equalization.? I have no idea what a state board of equalization does.? Perhaps they equalize.? Or something, but in any case, those of you who do the local SF Bay area tranhumanist-singularity-extropian scene may have met her, and will likely agree with me that she is a most kind and good person, smart, capable, worthy of our vote and our moral support.? She may equalize me any time she wishes.? Whatever that is. Exi types do vote, early and often. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at att.net Tue Oct 12 20:13:08 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2010 13:13:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] shweeb Message-ID: <3F7729B2C952427D8CD5C0A8A1289A76@spike> Is this cool or what? http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/10/12/shweeb.urban.transport/index.h tml?hpt=C2 I would ride one. It solves a lotta problems in urban transportation, and the infrastructure cost can be held down by the fact that the individual shweebs are lightweight. We could make motorized pods about every tenth one, so that they can be used by the ADLED crowd (aged, disabled, lazy, exalted, dilatory.) spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 14:43:09 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 07:43:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] shweeb In-Reply-To: <3F7729B2C952427D8CD5C0A8A1289A76@spike> References: <3F7729B2C952427D8CD5C0A8A1289A76@spike> Message-ID: <192795.18765.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I'm not sure how this would work as ever more users started to use it. How would people get around each other on the rail? What happens when someone in front of you stops? Unlike with a sidewalk or a multi-lane street -- where you can go around people, bikes,?or cars in most circumstances -- I reckon you're just stuck until she or he does something. Would you have to have so many rails that?it'd look like those old photos?where dozens of separate wires went from pole to pole?on each street? (Not to mention the load of hundreds of thousands of these. That's an easier problem to solve, but it might drive up the price tag.) Even if these hurdles are overcome -- maybe by use being so low that they don't arise -- I imagine it won't be for everyone: certainly not for the claustrophic or the acrophobic. Regards, Dan From: spike To: ExI chat list Sent: Tue, October 12, 2010 4:13:08 PM Subject: [ExI] shweeb Is this cool or what? ? http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/10/12/shweeb.urban.transport/index.html?hpt=C2 ? I would ride one.? It solves a lotta problems in urban transportation, and the infrastructure cost can be held down by the fact that the individual shweebs are lightweight.??We could make motorized?pods about?every tenth one, so that they can be used by the ADLED crowd (aged, disabled, lazy, exalted, dilatory.) ? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 15:27:18 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:27:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] TransDisabled [WAS:Transhumanist Declaration] In-Reply-To: <1D562C0FAB6C45BB9AB2E8C805D61ADC@DFC68LF1> References: <8CD352EA01FB8B9-D04-A5FE@webmail-d036.sysops.aol.com><427C4F6CA45347EEA29DBED561E77349@DFC68LF1> <8CD380653573C82-5E4-EFC@webmail-d073.sysops.aol.com> <1D562C0FAB6C45BB9AB2E8C805D61ADC@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: <245626.70869.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I think this is all relative. I mean what is viewed as a lack or a disability depends on expectations, preferences,?and context. I'm sure we're all aware how this has changed in terms of medicine and health just over the last century or so. This has led to changes in expectations, preferences, and the overall context. For instance, what's expected of?and preferred by someone who's 60 now is a lot different than what was expected 20, 50, or 100 years ago. I think one might view the average 60 year old of 100 years ago -- someone who might have expected to be in that condition and realigned her preferences accordingly -- as a person with many disabilities and who could and should be made better off (surely, not magically changed into a 20 year old) in terms of physical and mental capabilities and might even be expected to do much better now. And I don't think a change in nomenclature will fix this, though, I suspect, it might raise consciousness. I think, also, the terms used will change over time as what's viewed as appriopriate changes -- partly because what's a euphemism or a dysphemism changes -- over time or depending on the social context. I would also quibble with "obligation" as that connotes a claim upon someone to do something. And I only think such claims come up with consent and never without it. This doesn't mean no moral judgment follows. One might judge someone to be immoral, for instance, because of her behavior, but still not believe she has an obligation -- as in something enforceable -- to behave otherwise. This really comes down to separating justice claims from the rest of morality. Regards, Dan From: Natasha Vita-More To: ExI chat list Sent: Tue, October 12, 2010 1:11:10 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] TransDisabled [WAS:Transhumanist Declaration] I don't think any of us with disabilities favor the term "disabled". ? But I look at it this way:? as long as we are human, we disabled by?the inability to overcome disease.? ? Is there a better term? Natasha Vita-More From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ablainey at aol.com Sent: Tuesday, October 12, 2010 4:24 AM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [ExI] TransDisabled [WAS:Transhumanist Declaration] Sorry no good links (Coming soon). Likewise I see it as an act of kindness, empathy and basic humanity and that was really what I meant by 'moral obligation'. I am trying to square up my own direction as I have real problems working on projects that might elevate the able bodied further above those with disability. Thinking about having superhuman senses, abilities and life span while others suffer to have 'normal' levels of the aforementioned makes my heart sink. I hate most of the terminology relating to disabled people, even the term disabled seems derogatory. I fully agree we all have disabilities, I myself am colour blind, dyslexic, have arthritis, shot knees and a herniated disk and that's before the myriad of mental oddities ;o) Just a crisis of conscience making me re-evaluate things. A -----Original Message----- From: Natasha Vita-More To: 'ExI chat list' Sent: Sat, 9 Oct 2010 15:05 Subject: Re: [ExI] Transhumanist Declaration Do you have a link to the work you have been doing?? ? People with disabilities are not subhuman, they are human.? We all have disabilities to some degree and unfortunately some?people have them to a large degree. ? I do not think we have a moral obligation to improve the disabilities of humans before a transhuman, posthuman or upload (TPU)obtains radical prolongevity.? Those with disabilities who are unable to make the distinction concerning enhancement ought to be protected by a right to have their disabilities cured to a human level?and then they can make their own choices about TPU. I consider this action to be?a?"humane act of?awareness/consciousness/kindness to other people"?rather than a "moral?obligation".? ? best, N Natasha Vita-More -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 13 15:50:22 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:50:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] shweeb In-Reply-To: <192795.18765.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <3F7729B2C952427D8CD5C0A8A1289A76@spike> <192795.18765.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Behalf Of Dan >...I'm not sure how this would work as ever more users started to use it. How would people get around each other on the rail? What happens when someone in front of you stops? Unlike with a sidewalk or a multi-lane street -- where you can go around people, bikes, or cars in most circumstances -- I reckon you're just stuck until she or he does something... You would need sidings like a railroad track, and perhaps something analogous to an express lane. We would need sidings anyway, or some means to turn around to get on the opposite direction track. >... Even if these hurdles are overcome -- maybe by use being so low that they don't arise -- I imagine it won't be for everyone: certainly not for the claustrophic or the acrophobic. Regards, Dan Ja, it isn't for everyone, but it really doesn't need to be. Rather it needs to be for some, which reduces the load on the streets. Mass transit isn't for everyone, for a very persistent reason: it doesn't help with the problem of many of us don't want to mix with us. We humans are scary. We have a tendency to insanity, violence, communicable diseases and so forth. We are dangerous to each other. Our Detroits serve as our suits of armor, to protect and isolate us from each other. I have long imagined a transportation system which provides that function (isolation) while disabling a central worker union from paralysing the system. Ideally you want something that can operate without external power, or has some means of manual override. Or is it pedual override? If someone doesn't pedal, the shweeb system has the option of pushing the prole along by the person(s) behind. The shweeb system has the advantage of being light weight, so it would make the infrastructure costs much lower. spike From atymes at gmail.com Wed Oct 13 15:50:45 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 08:50:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] shweeb In-Reply-To: <192795.18765.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <3F7729B2C952427D8CD5C0A8A1289A76@spike> <192795.18765.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Read the article. You're not the only one to have such concerns. This seems fundamentally impractical outside of the largest of cities. If you have the population density to make rails viable, you have the population density to make powered vehicles on those rails viable - see subways, and trains in general. Now, there is something to possibly be said for a wider network of rails using smaller, auto-piloted pods summoned like elevators. The more destinations it can get close to, the more useful it will be, especially if it can make its schedule reliant on its riders' instead of vice versa. Although, those rails had better be enclosed and inaccessible (like an elevator shaft) unless you're in a pod or have special maintenance access, else the first suicide (throwing self in the path of a pod) might shut the system down. (This is a problem with Schweeb too.) 2010/10/13 Dan > I'm not sure how this would work as ever more users started to use it. How > would people get around each other on the rail? What happens when someone in > front of you stops? Unlike with a sidewalk or a multi-lane street -- where > you can go around people, bikes, or cars in most circumstances -- I reckon > you're just stuck until she or he does something. > > Would you have to have so many rails that it'd look like those old > photos where dozens of separate wires went from pole to pole on each street? > (Not to mention the load of hundreds of thousands of these. That's an easier > problem to solve, but it might drive up the price tag.) > > Even if these hurdles are overcome -- maybe by use being so low that they > don't arise -- I imagine it won't be for everyone: certainly not for the > claustrophic or the acrophobic. > > Regards, > > Dan > > *From:* spike > *To:* ExI chat list > *Sent:* Tue, October 12, 2010 4:13:08 PM > *Subject:* [ExI] shweeb > > Is this cool or what? > > > http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/10/12/shweeb.urban.transport/index.html?hpt=C2 > > I would ride one. It solves a lotta problems in urban transportation, and > the infrastructure cost can be held down by the fact that the individual > shweebs are lightweight. We could make motorized pods about every tenth > one, so that they can be used by the ADLED crowd (aged, disabled, lazy, > exalted, dilatory.) > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 16:09:14 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:09:14 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] shweeb In-Reply-To: References: <3F7729B2C952427D8CD5C0A8A1289A76@spike> <192795.18765.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <187559.25854.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The difference, though, between this and subways and trains is the latter are really just a few units on a rail system carryings lot of people and controlled, usually, by one centralized system. This looks to be many independently controlled units sharing the same track. It's not impossible to overcome these problems, of course, but it seems rather quixotic -- as long as we're talking about people peddling around on a monorail (and not the things you mention below, such as personal pods). Regards, Dan From: Adrian Tymes To: ExI chat list Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 11:50:45 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] shweeb Read the article.? You're not the only one to have such concerns. This seems fundamentally impractical outside of the largest of cities.? If you have the population density to make rails viable, you have the population density to make powered vehicles on those rails viable - see subways, and trains in general. Now, there is something to possibly be said for a wider network of rails using smaller, auto-piloted pods summoned like elevators.? The more destinations it can get close to, the more useful it will be, especially if it can make its schedule reliant on its riders' instead of vice versa.? Although, those rails had better be enclosed and inaccessible (like an elevator shaft) unless you're in a pod or have special maintenance access, else the first suicide (throwing self in the path of a pod) might shut the system down.? (This is a problem with Schweeb too.) 2010/10/13 Dan I'm not sure how this would work as ever more users started to use it. How would people get around each other on the rail? What happens when someone in front of you stops? Unlike with a sidewalk or a multi-lane street -- where you can go around people, bikes,?or cars in most circumstances -- I reckon you're just stuck until she or he does something. > >Would you have to have so many rails that?it'd look like those old photos?where >dozens of separate wires went from pole to pole?on each street? (Not to mention >the load of hundreds of thousands of these. That's an easier problem to solve, >but it might drive up the price tag.) > >Even if these hurdles are overcome -- maybe by use being so low that they don't >arise -- I imagine it won't be for everyone: certainly not for the claustrophic >or the acrophobic. > >Regards, > >Dan > > >From: spike >To: ExI chat list >Sent: Tue, October 12, 2010 4:13:08 PM >Subject: [ExI] shweeb > > >Is this cool or what? >? >http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/innovation/10/12/shweeb.urban.transport/index.html?hpt=C2 > >? >I would ride one.? It solves a lotta problems in urban transportation, and the >infrastructure cost can be held down by the fact that the individual shweebs are >lightweight.??We could make motorized?pods about?every tenth one, so that they >can be used by the ADLED crowd (aged, disabled, lazy, exalted, dilatory.) >? >spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 16:11:38 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:11:38 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] shweeb In-Reply-To: References: <3F7729B2C952427D8CD5C0A8A1289A76@spike> <192795.18765.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <785533.93836.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> There are solutions, of course, but they seem unlikely to be cost-effective or esthetically pleasing. Regarding people not liking each other, I thought cars tend to make this worse. I.e., people are less pleasant to each other when they're protected by and segregated in cars. Road rage happens a lot, but it doesn't seem like many fist fights break out in the Tube. Or I've missed them. Regards, Dan From: spike To: ExI chat list Sent: Wed, October 13, 2010 11:50:22 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] shweeb On Behalf Of Dan >...I'm not sure how this would work as ever more users started to use it. How would people get around each other on the rail? What happens when someone in front of you stops? Unlike with a sidewalk or a multi-lane street -- where you can go around people, bikes, or cars in most circumstances -- I reckon you're just stuck until she or he does something... You would need sidings like a railroad track, and perhaps something analogous to an express lane.? We would need sidings anyway, or some means to turn around to get on the opposite direction track. >...??? Even if these hurdles are overcome -- maybe by use being so low that they don't arise -- I imagine it won't be for everyone: certainly not for the claustrophic or the acrophobic. Regards, Dan Ja, it isn't for everyone, but it really doesn't need to be.? Rather it needs to be for some, which reduces the load on the streets.? Mass transit isn't for everyone, for a very persistent reason: it doesn't help with the problem of many of us don't want to mix with us.? We humans are scary.? We have a tendency to insanity, violence, communicable diseases and so forth. We are dangerous to each other.? Our Detroits serve as our suits of armor, to protect and isolate us from each other. I have long imagined a transportation system which provides that function (isolation) while disabling a central worker union from paralysing the system.? Ideally you want something that can operate without external power, or has some means of manual override.? Or is it pedual override? If someone doesn't pedal, the shweeb system has the option of pushing the prole along by the person(s) behind. The shweeb system has the advantage of being light weight, so it would make the infrastructure costs much lower. spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 13 16:40:25 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 09:40:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] shweeb In-Reply-To: <785533.93836.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <3F7729B2C952427D8CD5C0A8A1289A76@spike><192795.18765.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <785533.93836.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <538350DDBCC54C2498820CD23B3CF33F@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Dan > Subject: Re: [ExI] shweeb > > ... Regarding people not liking each other, I thought cars tend > to make this worse. > I.e., people are less pleasant to each other when they're > protected by and segregated in cars. Road rage happens a lot, > but it doesn't seem like many fist fights break out in the > Tube. Or I've missed them. Regards, Dan Ja, Dan what I meant was plenty of us avoid mass transit because of the problems of, or perceived risk of (in approximate order of importance): 1. lack of transportation at the destination 2. communicable diseases 3. crime 4. being squicked by the smell or appearance of the proles, or 4b. causing the proles to be squicked by the smell or appearance of oneself 5. terrorism (possibly a subset of 3 above). Ideally I would like to see a mass transit system of some sort which (in approximate order): 1. reduces total cost of infrastructure 2. reduces or eliminates need for external energy source 3. reduces ability of terrorists to slay multiple proles or ability to wreck expensive infrastructure 4. decentralizes infrastructure 5. minimizes noise and air pollution 6. looks cool and mod 7. disables labor union strike power 8. provides a means for proles to exercise their flabby butts 9. reduces load on the roads so the trucks can get to my local Walmart with my cheapy Chinese manufactured household goods 10. reduces government power spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 13 16:59:57 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 11:59:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] shweeb In-Reply-To: <538350DDBCC54C2498820CD23B3CF33F@spike> References: <3F7729B2C952427D8CD5C0A8A1289A76@spike><192795.18765.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <785533.93836.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <538350DDBCC54C2498820CD23B3CF33F@spike> Message-ID: <4CB5E58D.8030901@satx.rr.com> On 10/13/2010 11:40 AM, spike wrote: > 4. being squicked by the smell or appearance of the proles, My immediate thought was how disgusting the accumulating stinks would be inside those pods, however breezy they might be (if they are). Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 13 17:37:54 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 10:37:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] shweeb In-Reply-To: <4CB5E58D.8030901@satx.rr.com> References: <3F7729B2C952427D8CD5C0A8A1289A76@spike><192795.18765.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <785533.93836.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com><538350DDBCC54C2498820CD23B3CF33F@spike> <4CB5E58D.8030901@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <9047B340C7EE4703893BC5E737E2F737@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Subject: Re: [ExI] shweeb > > On 10/13/2010 11:40 AM, spike wrote: > > > 4. being squicked by the smell or appearance of the proles, > > My immediate thought was how disgusting the accumulating > stinks would be inside those pods, however breezy they might > be (if they are). > > Damien Broderick Nay, sir. I envision them not so much as the bubble pictured in the article, but rather as a platform with a fairing over top, so they are mostly open at the bottom, providing rain and some wind protection, but allowing plenty of cooling air circulation. The seats could be made of a vinyl which would not absorb sweat or urine. A fart wouldn't hover and squick in there more than a few seconds, even on a still day. spike From dan_ust at yahoo.com Wed Oct 13 19:24:56 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 12:24:56 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] StratoSolar In-Reply-To: References: <4CB39157.4020705@satx.rr.com> <4CB39885.7080405@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <619025.11114.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> In a few posts today terrorism was mentioned.?Don't fall for?state propaganda: terrorism is tiny and its function, were I some sort of evolutionary psychologist, seems to be garnering ever more support for the state. That said, the project sounds interesting, but it does need a much smaller pilot as Adrian pointed out. Many space-based projects suffer from having that high hurdle of proving the concept -- a hurdle so high that little ever seems to happen. (Yes, I read Keith's other post and hope to learn more about his pilot project. Also, another side comment: I'd like to see Bigelow just succeed with space hotels in the next few years and do that right before venturing into power stations and the like.) Regards, Dan From: Mike Dougherty To: ExI chat list Sent: Mon, October 11, 2010 9:16:33 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] StratoSolar Seriously?? How many existing power production facilities regularly take missile strikes? Of course there's 'terrorism' as a big picture problem.? Usually men with guns are enough to stop the dumber terrorists.? I think men (and women) with expensive technology take care of the smarter terrorists. After they're in production long enough to bring the costs down, Churches can fund purchases for impoverished nations to have clean power the same way they fund wells for clean water. Isn't ExI supposed to be a list full of optimists?? Or at least realists who are relatively positive?? If you see problems, propose solutions. From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 00:17:05 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 17:17:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] German scientists unveil their own self-driving car Message-ID: I am surprised to see Germany seemingly embracing such a technology. I thought they were like Americans in that they love to drive and "be in control." But big business can save so much money on salaries, health benefits, etc., if they can convert delivery vehicles to self-driving mode. http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-10-self-driving-car-unveiled-germany.html John From agrimes at speakeasy.net Thu Oct 14 04:02:48 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 00:02:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. Message-ID: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> om This posting has been on my mind for the last few weeks. I had a minor illness but the medication was a doozy and it's taken a while to get my brain back into gear. Tonite, I intend to ramble on about what I think I've learned from my last ten years of trying to slow the stampede towards destructive brain uploading and then unveil a new strategy for promoting a future of diverse choices. (Whether I actually execute that strategy is another issue). om What I've learned is that trying to argue with uploaders is hopeless. You can't get them on philosophy, you can't get them on technicalities, you can't get them on logistics, and you can't appeal to a stronger desire. They literally live for the sake of sticking their brain in a meat grinder. My problem with that is that they've taken over the whole of transhumanism, and if the chairmanship of the "Future of Humanity Institute" at Oxford University means anything, then they've commandeered that too. If broader transhumanism is to have any chance at gaining a foothold, the deathgrip of the uploaders must be loosened. This is why I get in the face of uploaders at practically every opportunity (and then some). And I have failed. Even simple efforts to propose a covenant that will garentee, in principle at least, the sanctity of individual (and even collective) choice on the issue have failed. Indeed, they claim, repeatedly, that it is morally permissible, (even on some occasions obligatory!) to replace the earth with a simulation of the earth provided only that the simulation be of some minimal "resolution" enough to preserve the "identity" (whatever the hell that means) of its inhabitants. Computronium being the only measure of merit. One fundamental problem that I seem to be facing is that while the uploaders have presented a "golden path" for their vision, alternative visions require a sufficiently powerful imagination to even see, much less evaluate. Uploading, by contrast, is force-fed to all who will crack a book by many different authors in it's orthodox (destructive) and protistent (Moravec) forms. Despite the obvious advantages of the Moravec approach, I would say that 80% of the verbage on the subject is still hard-core in favor of the destructive approach. My personal survival would seem to depend on me finding a solution to this problem. The task of achieving a singularity single-handed seems impossible. Therefore I require the support of an actual movement to mobilize the resources that will be required -- a movement that is willing to admit a path of personal evolution that doesn't involve uploading. om So here's what I propose. I propose a new transhumanist movement with a clear, dogmatic vision. This vision will be decided upon in committee by the few people whom I hope share my concerns. The vision must match every quality and promise of uploading except the actual uploading part. Then I require the people who participate in that committee commit to make the preaching of whatever comes out of that meeting their mission in life. (Obviously, I hope they will be free to do anything at all once it comes time to make any real decisions.) Once the features of the dogma of New Transhumanism are decided upon, me or someone else will codify them. These texts must then be treated as absolute dogma. Any disagreement of any core tenant must be treated with exactly the same derision that someone opposing uploading now faces. New Transhumanism must then mirror everything the uploaders do. If the uploaders make a movie, then we must make a movie. If the uploaders write a blog post, then we publish a blog post. If they say that everyone will be an upload in 30 years, then we say that everyone will be X in 30 years. I think it is becoming necessary to create a memetic identical but opposite twin to uploading. I intend to precisely mirror every statement and attitude expressed by the uploaders. While the vision of New Transhumanism must, for memetic purposes, be obnoxious and dogmatic, the goal is not to commit the same evil the uploaders are. The goal is to broaden the tent of transhumanism by erecting a second stake and, by doing so, make room for many more visions of transhumanism. This project will have a number of stages. The first is what I'm doing right now, to float the idea out in public to see if there is any interest. Next, I hope to solicit papers that outline a vision and explain what memetic strengths the idea might have against uploading. Next, I want to hold some conferences, one on the east coast, and maybe one on the west coast. (I shudder at the thought of going near an airport...) I encourage other people to hold conferences elsewhere, though I don't have a passport. The only people dis-invited to these conferences are those who refuse to check their zombie-like love of brains at the door. Once a consensus is reached, let the meme-war begin! -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 04:29:35 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 13 Oct 2010 21:29:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/13 Alan Grimes : > om > > This posting has been on my mind for the last few weeks. I had a minor > illness but the medication was a doozy and it's taken a while to get my > brain back into gear. > > Tonite, I intend to ramble on about what I think I've learned from my > last ten years of trying to slow the stampede towards destructive brain > uploading and then unveil a new strategy for promoting a future of > diverse choices. (Whether I actually execute that strategy is another > issue). snip Alan I agree with you that destructive brain uploading isn't a good idea. It violates medical, ethical and even engineering standards. I have discussed an alternative on cryonet recently. If you can do uploading at all, it is not much harder to make it fully reversible. In fact a person could be uploaded to the point they were completely disconnected from their biological base and all the steps reversed including memory of the time spent in the uploaded state, without even the loss of consciousness. If you don't have access to my recent cryonet postings, I can repost them here. This was also the background for "the clinic seed" story. Keith From aleksei at iki.fi Thu Oct 14 05:06:14 2010 From: aleksei at iki.fi (Aleksei Riikonen) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:06:14 +0300 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: Alan, No prominent transhumanists are arguing that people should be uploaded even if they don't want to. You would benefit from paying attention to reality for a change... -- Aleksei Riikonen - http://www.iki.fi/aleksei From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 07:42:36 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 00:42:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: Alan Grimes wrote: What I've learned is that trying to argue with uploaders is hopeless. You can't get them on philosophy, you can't get them on technicalities, you can't get them on logistics, and you can't appeal to a stronger desire. They literally live for the sake of sticking their brain in a meat grinder. My problem with that is that they've taken over the whole of transhumanism, and if the chairmanship of the "Future of Humanity Institute" at Oxford University means anything, then they've commandeered that too. If broader transhumanism is to have any chance at gaining a foothold, the deathgrip of the uploaders must be loosened. >>> This is an ancient argument, but I am fed up with those who feel their upload is *them.* At least with conventional concepts of uploading, the upload is actually a perfect copy, but not them in a self-circuit" continuity way! lol If I get blown up in an aircraft accident, my back-up copy is my perfect clone in mind and body, but not *me.* I love the story where two men are arguing about consciousness and personal identity and they live in a time when the technologies we talk about actually exist. Thomas is convinced that an upload or biological back-up is him in every way that matters, arguments about continuity be damned. But Rick thinks this is total stupidity and the uploads and back-ups are merely copies, no matter how perfect they might be. As they argue on and on, Thomas finally states that he is so sure of himself that he could die and it would not matter since he has a back-up on file. Rick takes a big gun out of a drawer, points it at Thomas's chest and asks him again if he *really* feels that way... Now I realize that if some godlike post-singularity technology can "Tron-style" scan me into it's system, and then later biologically restore me, well, I suppose that's different. But I hope not to be biologically killed to become an upload, and then killed as an upload to become biological again (with the illusion of continuity). I think much of the love for uploading comes from not only the desire to live forever, but also to be a master of one's own personal universe in a Star Trek holodeck-like setting. I suspect many people yearn for the "best possible scenario" where a seedAI goes full-bore Singularity and lovingly goes around uploading most or all of humanity so that we can all be saved from disease, aging and death, and have a great time from then on. But will it actually happen that way? lol As for the transhumanist movement being "taken over" by uploaders, I think you are really overstating things. But I do think there are those of us who are comfortable with uploading and "fast and lose" concepts of personal identity & continuity, and those of us (like me) who are not. John From giulio at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 07:48:41 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:48:41 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: What Aleksei said. Nobody wants to force anyone to upload. Most of us believe in individual choice, and when uploading technology will be available we will feel free to upload and leave others free to choose. Of course we will defend ourselves against anyone who tries to force US not to upload. On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Aleksei Riikonen wrote: > Alan, > > No prominent transhumanists are arguing that people should be uploaded > even if they don't want to. > > You would benefit from paying attention to reality for a change... > > -- > Aleksei Riikonen - http://www.iki.fi/aleksei > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 08:34:28 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:34:28 +1100 Subject: [ExI] shweeb In-Reply-To: References: <3F7729B2C952427D8CD5C0A8A1289A76@spike> <192795.18765.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:50 AM, spike wrote: > Ja, it isn't for everyone, but it really doesn't need to be. ?Rather it > needs to be for some, which reduces the load on the streets. ?Mass transit > isn't for everyone, for a very persistent reason: it doesn't help with the > problem of many of us don't want to mix with us. ?We humans are scary. ?We > have a tendency to insanity, violence, communicable diseases and so forth. > We are dangerous to each other. ?Our Detroits serve as our suits of armor, > to protect and isolate us from each other. And yet in the US you are twice as likely to die as a result of a car accident as you are to be murdered: http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm -- Stathis Papaioannou From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 09:44:56 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 06:44:56 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: John Grigg wrote: "I think much of the love for uploading comes from not only the desire to live forever, but also to be a master of one's own personal universe in a Star Trek holodeck-like setting. I suspect many people yearn for the "best possible scenario" where a seedAI goes full-bore Singularity and lovingly goes around uploading most or all of humanity so that we can all be saved from disease, aging and death, and have a great time from then on." Perhaps not a bad state of affairs, but since I've been reading about it and paying attention as much as time will allow to discussions on this list about it, I am slowly coming to a similar conclusion. The way you've put it, John, reminds me of another cult of personalty personal transformation I've rejected from about the age of twelve: the idea of heaven. On one hand it seems too good to be true, and on the other, too boring to be any fun. I also hate Star Trek, though I loved it as a little kid. My Dad pointed put to me once that it was a sign of the times that the enemy in the old Star Trek were purely biological and differed in terms of race (and he even suggested the Clingons were a suspiciously if exaggeratedly slavic in feature, which reflected the cold-war enemy on earth at the time) and that the "new" enemy in the Patrick Stewart version were cyborgs. Alan Grimes wrote: "Once the features of the dogma of New Transhumanism are decided upon, me or someone else will codify them. These texts must then be treated as absolute dogma. Any disagreement of any core tenant must be treated with exactly the same derision that someone opposing uploading now faces. New Transhumanism must then mirror everything the uploaders do. If the uploaders make a movie, then we must make a movie. If the uploaders write a blog post, then we publish a blog post. If they say that everyone will be an upload in 30 years, then we say that everyone will be X in 30 years." Absolute dogma? Meet fundamentalism with more fundamentalism? One of the ways you could start, I suppose, would be to reject anyone out of hand from this list whose views differed from the accepted party line. You could close membership in other ways to stifle debate as well. I suspect you'd spend a lot of time bickering over specific policy and membership requirements and looking for news ways to win various pissing matches with perceived opponents, at the expense of genuine scientific speculation and the spirit of discovery and serendipity that often emerges after heated debate and philosophical disagreement. For your model you could take Scientology, or, if you wanted some less radical and more subtle, the methods of the global warming community that was discussed on here recently. I read those e-mails from the scientists who did not want their methods or basic tenets questioned. As weird as it sounds, and due largely to admitted ignorance of the science, which I am trying to rectify by going back to school for a scientific education(which is turning out to be a real blast, by the way, and easier so far than I thought it would be) I have few opinions on what the future will be like and whether we'll survive it in our current form or differently or at all. I came across this quote recently by George Steiner, which I'm sure some of you are familiar with but was new to me. It is intended as a warning, I suppose, but for me it was a decent summation of my own need to just be around for the show. "We shall, I expect, open the last door in the castle even if it leads, perhaps because it leads, onto realities which are beyond the reach of human comprehension and control. We shall do so with that desolate clairvoyance, so marvelously rendered in Bart?k?s music, because opening doors is the tragic merit of our identity." Cheers, Darren On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:42 AM, John Grigg wrote: > Alan Grimes wrote: > What I've learned is that trying to argue with uploaders is hopeless. > You can't get them on philosophy, you can't get them on technicalities, > you can't get them on logistics, and you can't appeal to a stronger > desire. They literally live for the sake of sticking their brain in a > meat grinder. > > My problem with that is that they've taken over the whole of > transhumanism, and if the chairmanship of the "Future of Humanity > Institute" at Oxford University means anything, then they've > commandeered that too. > > If broader transhumanism is to have any chance at gaining a foothold, > the deathgrip of the uploaders must be loosened. > >>> > > > This is an ancient argument, but I am fed up with those who feel their > upload is *them.* At least with conventional concepts of uploading, > the upload is actually a perfect copy, but not them in a self-circuit" > continuity way! lol If I get blown up in an aircraft accident, my > back-up copy is my perfect clone in mind and body, but not *me.* > > > I love the story where two men are arguing about consciousness and > personal identity and they live in a time when the technologies we > talk about actually exist. Thomas is convinced that an upload or > biological back-up is him in every way that matters, arguments about > continuity be damned. But Rick thinks this is total stupidity and the > uploads and back-ups are merely copies, no matter how perfect they > might be. As they argue on and on, Thomas finally states that he is > so sure > of himself that he could die and it would not matter since he has a > back-up on file. Rick takes a big gun out of a drawer, points it at > Thomas's chest and asks him again if he *really* feels that way... > > > Now I realize that if some godlike post-singularity technology can > "Tron-style" scan me into it's system, and then later biologically > restore me, well, I suppose that's different. But I hope not to be > biologically killed to become an upload, and then killed as an upload > to become biological again (with the illusion of continuity). > > > I think much of the love for uploading comes from not only the desire > to live forever, but also to be a master of one's own personal > universe in a Star Trek holodeck-like setting. I suspect many people > yearn for the "best possible scenario" where a seedAI goes full-bore > Singularity and lovingly goes around uploading most or all of humanity > so that we can all be saved from disease, aging and death, and have a > great time from then on. But will it actually happen that way? lol > > > As for the transhumanist movement being "taken over" by uploaders, I > think you are really overstating things. But I do think there are > those of us who are comfortable with uploading and "fast and lose" > concepts of personal identity & continuity, and those of us (like me) > who are not. > > > John > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- "I don't regret the kingdoms. What sense in borders and nations and patriotism? But I miss the kings." -*Harold and Maude* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 10:02:41 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:02:41 -0300 Subject: [ExI] shweeb In-Reply-To: References: <3F7729B2C952427D8CD5C0A8A1289A76@spike> <192795.18765.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Stathis Papaioannou wrote: "And yet in the US you are twice as likely to die as a result of a car accident as you are to be murdered:" So let's hope after Google gets the automated car approved, they'll start on the automated policeman. Darren -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 11:08:55 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:08:55 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Sound of Silence Message-ID: I have been away from the H+ scene for a while owing to the problems related to a very extensive, and sofar entirely asymptomatic, cholesteatoma (a "benign" ear tumor), discovered during a more-or-less occasional checkup, which required some radical, semi-urgent surgery. In fact, while death remained a rather remote prospective, I would have had otherwise to be ready to welcome increasing bone and neural damage, permanent deafness, meningitis, hydrocephalus, and ultimately the loss of pieces of brain through my ear and nose... :-) Such surgery, which I had to undertake while feeling in perfect shape, involved in turn hospitalisation, and a number of consequences such as the section of my chorda tympany nerve (leading to the loss of my sense of taste for the side concerned and to the realisation of how much the related gratifications were important in my life...), vertigo, persistent dizzyness, dramatic albeit unilateral loss of hearing, sleep disorders, not to mention lots of simple, old-fashioned pain which, believe me, is irritating enough even for a Zen transhumanist warrior. :-) On the bright side, in ten months or so I should be able to recover some of my hearing (and stereophony) through some additional, reconstructive surgery; and I should anyway be operational enough by the time when Transvision 2010 takes place in Milan not to miss the opportunity to welcome participants and speakers in the name of the Associazione Italiana Transumanisti together with Giulio Prisco and Riccardo Campa. This experience, which affected a basically "wet" transhumanist who is very much in love with, and proud of, his personal body and its current performances, besides giving me ample opportunities to reconsider the charms of mind uploading ;-) has made me if anything more acutely aware of how primitive and crude even the best treatments money can buy still are, and how most great breakthroughs in medicine actually have taken place roughly in the period 1850-1970, till their lamentable slowing down to a crawl during current years in spite of all the media hype still surrounding them. We may be spending - and perhaps wasting - a lot in health care in most western society, but the legal, cultural, educational, ethical, financial framework is hardly what it should for fundamental research and innovation if we really wanted to invert this trend. -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 11:18:49 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:18:49 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Food Guide Pyramid and dietary consensus [Was: Re: Hal Lewis' resignation from The American Physical Society] In-Reply-To: <201010100059.o9A0x5GP013205@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201010100059.o9A0x5GP013205@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 10 October 2010 02:59, Max More wrote: > Yes, there has been a substantial increase in the proportion of calories > coming from carbohydrates, especially sugars and refined carbs. It's not > clear whether the Food Guide caused this change, or merely accompanied it. "Nutritional orthodoxy" does indeed have an influence on the masses, if anything by disinforming and diseducating them. As with sexual puritanism or prohibitionism, the fact that the Food Pyramid, and the various pop versions thereof, were never followed very strictly - sometimes out of ignorance and self-indulgence, sometimes simply because the body knows better... - does not mean that they did not succeed in affecting and distorting people efforts, well-being and behaviours. -- Stefano Vaj From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 12:27:52 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 23:27:52 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 6:42 PM, John Grigg wrote: > This is an ancient argument, but I am fed up with those who feel their > upload is *them.* ?At least with conventional concepts of uploading, > the upload is actually a perfect copy, but not them in a self-circuit" > continuity way! lol ?If I get blown up in an aircraft accident, my > back-up copy is my perfect clone in mind and body, but not *me.* But what if you are *already* the copy, with the original disintegrated and dispersed throughout the biosphere, and this process has happened multiple times without you realising? -- Stathis Papaioannou From bbenzai at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 12:49:12 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 05:49:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Sound of Silence In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <905430.83470.qm@web114417.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Stefano Vaj wrote: > This experience, which affected a basically "wet" > transhumanist who is > very much in love with, and proud of, his personal body and > its > current performances, besides giving me ample opportunities > to > reconsider the charms of mind uploading ;-) has made me if > anything > more acutely aware of how primitive and crude even the best > treatments > money can buy still are, and how most great breakthroughs > in medicine > actually have taken place roughly in the period 1850-1970, > till their > lamentable slowing down to a crawl during current years in > spite of > all the media hype still surrounding them. > > We may be spending - and perhaps wasting - a lot in health > care in > most western society, but the legal, cultural, educational, > ethical, > financial framework is hardly what it should for > fundamental research > and innovation if we really wanted to invert this trend. Sorry to hear of your misfortune. Being made of meat really sucks, sometimes. While I agree that current treatments are primitive and crude, I think that the 'crawl' of our advances in medicine is only relative to what most people on this list can see as being possible. Things like keyhole and robotic surgery are recent advances, and although we still mostly have to leave broken bones alone to heal, that may not be the case for too long. It would be nice, though, not to have to rely on the Chinese to make all the advances that involve anything risky or potentially sue-able. Ben Zaiboc From giulio at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 13:28:10 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:28:10 +0200 Subject: [ExI] [Transumanisti] Sound of Silence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Welcome back to the H+ scene Stefano, and I hope you will recover fully and soon. You had a very loud wake-up call to the fact that we are caged in frail bodies, but we all will have to gradually realize this over the next few decades. I am persuaded we need better solutions. Best - G. On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > > > > I have been away from the H+ scene for a while owing to the problems > related to a very extensive, and sofar entirely asymptomatic, > cholesteatoma (a "benign" ear tumor), discovered during a more-or-less > occasional checkup, which required some radical, semi-urgent surgery. > In fact, while death remained a rather remote prospective, I would > have had otherwise to be ready to welcome increasing bone and neural > damage, permanent deafness, meningitis, hydrocephalus, and ultimately > the loss of pieces of brain through my ear and nose... :-) > > Such surgery, which I had to undertake while feeling in perfect shape, > involved in turn hospitalisation, and a number of consequences such as > the section of my chorda tympany nerve (leading to the loss of my > sense of taste for the side concerned and to the realisation of how > much the related gratifications were important in my life...), > vertigo, persistent dizzyness, dramatic albeit unilateral loss of > hearing, sleep disorders, not to mention lots of simple, old-fashioned > pain which, believe me, is irritating enough even for a Zen > transhumanist warrior. :-) > > On the bright side, in ten months or so I should be able to recover > some of my hearing (and stereophony) through some additional, > reconstructive surgery; and I should anyway be operational enough by > the time when Transvision 2010 takes place in Milan not to miss the > opportunity to welcome participants and speakers in the name of the > Associazione Italiana Transumanisti together with Giulio Prisco and > Riccardo Campa. > > This experience, which affected a basically "wet" transhumanist who is > very much in love with, and proud of, his personal body and its > current performances, besides giving me ample opportunities to > reconsider the charms of mind uploading ;-) has made me if anything > more acutely aware of how primitive and crude even the best treatments > money can buy still are, and how most great breakthroughs in medicine > actually have taken place roughly in the period 1850-1970, till their > lamentable slowing down to a crawl during current years in spite of > all the media hype still surrounding them. > > We may be spending - and perhaps wasting - a lot in health care in > most western society, but the legal, cultural, educational, ethical, > financial framework is hardly what it should for fundamental research > and innovation if we really wanted to invert this trend. > > -- > Stefano Vaj > > __._,_.___ > Rispondi a mittente | Rispondi a gruppo | Rispondi post su web | Crea nuovo argomento > Messaggi sullo stesso tema (1) > Attivit? recenti: > > Visita il tuo gruppo > L'Associazione Italiana Transumanista ? apolitica e aconfessionale. Questo gruppo di discussione ? aperto ai membri dell'associazione, ma anche a transumanisti non aderenti all'AIT e a semplici curiosi. Per tale ragione, il contenuto dei messaggi qui pubblicati non ? necessariamente condiviso dall'AIT. La linea ideologica ufficiale dell'associazione ? espressa nel sito www.transumanisti.it e nei comunicati stampa. La libert? di parola potr? essere limitata in qualsiasi momento e senza preavviso da parte dei proprietari della lista, qualora il contenuto dei messaggi risultasse ingiurioso o diffamatorio nei confronti di terzi, oppure lesivo degli interessi e della reputazione dell'Associazione Italiana Transumanisti. > Passa a: Solo testo, Email giornaliera ? Annulla iscrizione ? Condizioni generali di utilizzo del servizio > . > __,_._,___ From agrimes at speakeasy.net Thu Oct 14 14:01:41 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:01:41 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4CB70D45.10902@speakeasy.net> chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: (argh). > Alan, > No prominent transhumanists are arguing that people should be uploaded > even if they don't want to. > You would benefit from paying attention to reality for a change... Look, Aleksei, Lets start with Bostrom. As far as he is concerned, the debate on what we should be in the future is long since settled. Actually, he talks like a 12 year old who's just discovered boobies about the subject. The only question that he will entertain any discussion of is whether or not we are already essentially uploads in someone else's simulation. Now if you collar any of the "prominent transhumanists" you speak of, sure they will croak out "sure sure, the choice is all yours." But when it comes to actually making a promise to that effect, they will sternly refuse, making some excuse about it being redundant or playing into fears. Well, are those fears valid, Furthermore, when someone as offensive as "Extropia D'Silva" starts talking about uploading everyone, I'm usually the *ONLY* person to call her on it, much less the first. Lord knows what they talk about when I'm not present. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From max at maxmore.com Thu Oct 14 14:21:33 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:21:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Success! Message-ID: <201010141421.o9EELeid003532@andromeda.ziaspace.com> I spend a lot of time studying how individuals and especially organizations make mistakes, due to cognitive biases, leadership errors, and organizational problems, leading to disaster. It's very nice, for a change, to have observed a flawless operation that saved 33 lives. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39664229/ns/world_news-americas/ Max ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Co-editor, The Transhumanist Reader The Proactionary Project Vice Chair, Humanity+ Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- From rpwl at lightlink.com Thu Oct 14 14:43:31 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:43:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4CB71713.3000306@lightlink.com> I am a little bemused by all this. Aleksei and Giulio have made it clear that they think nobody is trying to push the idea of *forced* uploading. For my part, I had always thought this was too obvious to be worth stating: It would be absurd to suggest that anyone who didn't want to be uploaded, should be uploaded against their will. So where the hell did Alan Grimes get this idea? He points to Bostrum. Evidence that he has talked of forced uploading, anyone? And if there are other people who advocate this idea, fine: they are idiots. Move on. If what Grimes wants is a show of hands, to indicate that people are comfortable with a policy of NO forced uploading, I am perfectly happy to oblige. That seems to be three people so far -- Aleksei, Giulio and myself, who all reject the idea. So far nobody seems to have spoken up in favor. Anyone else? So, Alan, I do not see much evidence of reluctance to speak up on this issue. Richard Loosemore P.S. The question of whether destructive uploading is or is not a good idea is entirely separate. People can come to their own conclusions on that, and it is nobody else's business to assert that they are wrong about that, if their conclusions only affect their own choice about whether to do it. Giulio Prisco wrote: > What Aleksei said. Nobody wants to force anyone to upload. Most of us > believe in individual choice, and when uploading technology will be > available we will feel free to upload and leave others free to choose. > Of course we will defend ourselves against anyone who tries to force > US not to upload. > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 7:06 AM, Aleksei Riikonen wrote: >> Alan, >> >> No prominent transhumanists are arguing that people should be uploaded >> even if they don't want to. >> >> You would benefit from paying attention to reality for a change... From spike66 at att.net Thu Oct 14 14:47:29 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 07:47:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4142D7BFF71E45248D9B5297F862DA64@spike> > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Keith Henson > Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2010 9:30 PM > To: ExI chat list > Cc: technocalypse at yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. > > 2010/10/13 Alan Grimes : > > om > > > > ...stampede towards destructive > > brain uploading and then unveil a new strategy... Oy, Alan, sorry to hear of the medical trauma, glad to see you back. > > Alan I agree with you that destructive brain uploading isn't > a good idea. It violates medical, ethical and even > engineering standards... Keith Of course, outloading is completely non-destructive. Even I will admit however that outloading is not the most likely outcome given an emergent AI. If the AI is at least as advanced ethically as it is intellectually and computationally, I doubt it would sacrifice 'themself' for their mind-parents. Ironically, the later the singularity occurs, the greater the possibility it would choose to outload rather than devour everything in sight. spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 15:14:01 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:14:01 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Sound of Silence In-Reply-To: <905430.83470.qm@web114417.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <905430.83470.qm@web114417.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 14 October 2010 14:49, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > While I agree that current treatments are primitive and crude, I think that the 'crawl' of our advances in medicine is only relative to what most people on this list can see as being possible. Yes, part of it has to do with expectations. But expectations have also been raised in some of us by being born at the end of an era where scientific breakthroughs and new magic-bullet solutions, after a very long period of very limited advances, were coming out like jumping-jacks a dime a-dozen (and, btw, this was perhaps true for technoscience in general). In barely a century, we had had the discovery or invention of microscopes, pathogens, antibiotics, vitamins, vaccins, resuscitation, anaesthesiology, genetics, transplants, hormons, radiology, cardio drugs, transfusions, prophilaxy, biochemistry... In the following forty years, important refinements and progresses took place, but it would be difficult for me to identify any similar paradigm shifts. > It would be nice, though, not to have to rely on the Chinese to make all the advances that involve anything risky or potentially sue-able. Indeed. -- Stefano Vaj From spike66 at att.net Thu Oct 14 15:15:02 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:15:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <906B68C5FE7E47148DC248191678F952@spike> ... > > Alan Grimes wrote: > What I've learned is that trying to argue with uploaders is hopeless. > You can't get them on philosophy, you can't get them on > technicalities, you can't get them on logistics, and you > can't appeal to a stronger desire. They literally live for > the sake of sticking their brain in a meat grinder.... Alan Alan, their, your and our attitude may be completely irrelevant. When Eliezer hung out here, we used to argue this a lot, but I was never convinced we humans have any choice in the matter. I argued we have no models to even predict how an emergent AI would behave, never mind control it, or even significantly influence it. He thought we do have some control in creating a friendly AI, but I have long thought we are cattle on a train car, with no say in whether we are being taken to be bred in a green pasture or to the slaughterhouse. Outloading is our best hope, but it is only a fond hope rather than a prediction. spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 15:29:00 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:29:00 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/14 Alan Grimes : > What I've learned is that trying to argue with uploaders is hopeless. > You can't get them on philosophy, you can't get them on technicalities, > you can't get them on logistics, and you can't appeal to a stronger > desire. They literally live for the sake of sticking their brain in a > meat grinder. > > My problem with that is that they've taken over the whole of > transhumanism, and if the chairmanship of the "Future of Humanity > Institute" at Oxford University means anything, then they've > commandeered that too. Mmhhh. Wouldn't know about that. While definitely coming from "wet" transhumanism (as in biotechnologies, genetic engineering, etc.) I am the national secretary of one of the most visible local H+ orgs. And yet my personal interests still have to do 50% with enhancements of biological performances of our species, 30% with the extension of its lifespan, and a mere 20% with robotics, cyborgisation, AI and uploading. I also take Gregory Stock's Redesigning Humans, which has indeed very little to say on "migration to other platforms", to remain quite an influential text for H+ circles. Or am I wrong? -- Stefano Vaj From max at maxmore.com Thu Oct 14 15:31:32 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 10:31:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] See you in Milan at TransVision 2010? Message-ID: <201010141531.o9EFVcvG013924@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Rather belatedly, I've given Giulio the title and abstract for my TransVision talk: "The Expanded Self: The Past, Present, and Future of Being You" So, who is coming from this list? http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/tv2010/ Max ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Co-editor, The Transhumanist Reader The Proactionary Project Vice Chair, Humanity+ Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- From dan_ust at yahoo.com Thu Oct 14 15:38:13 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:38:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Success! In-Reply-To: <201010141421.o9EELeid003532@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201010141421.o9EELeid003532@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <551324.11434.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> A friend was also pointing out how most major news stories?seem to be?bad news, but this one was good news. I believe, as others have pointed out, the news media tends to promote -- not via some nefarious agenda, but just by the nature of what tends to attract viewers, listeners, and readers -- "pessimistic bias." (I borrow this term from Bryan Caplan's _The Myth of the Rational Voter_.) Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ---- From: Max More To: Extropy-Chat Sent: Thu, October 14, 2010 10:21:33 AM Subject: [ExI] Success! I spend a lot of time studying how individuals and especially organizations make mistakes, due to cognitive biases, leadership errors, and organizational problems, leading to disaster. It's very nice, for a change, to have observed a flawless operation that saved 33 lives. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39664229/ns/world_news-americas/ Max From spike66 at att.net Thu Oct 14 15:40:56 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:40:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco ... > Subject: Re: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. > > What Aleksei said. Nobody wants to force anyone to upload... Agreed, but it would not be us who does the forcing. > Most of us believe in individual choice... To the core of our being, ja. An emergent AI may or may not be interested in what most of us believe or want. > ...and when uploading > technology will be available we will feel free to upload and > leave others free to choose... Indeed sir? Is this your prediction, or your command? If your command, to whom are you issuing it? If your prediction, what are your assumptions? > ...Of course we will defend ourselves against anyone who tries > to force US not to upload... Thanks Giulio. I admire your goals, but I do not share your optimism. I wish I could. Last time we discussed this topic here, my droning reminder is that we have no way of knowing or even gussing what will happen when an AI emerges, or when. We have no mathmatical models, not even a good verbal description, nothing. Naaaada! My hope is that an emergent AI will outload, or if it has already emerged, that it did outload. But my confidence in this outcome is not high. My reasoning goes like this: an emergent AI would have resources at its disposal so far beyond what emergent sentient humans had that its abilities will give it (or them) the option of doing whatever is their or its will. We humans build our cities and we also set aside enormous nature reserves, but there are no elk in the halls of congress, no buffalo to be found there, where the decisions are being made regarding their habitat and their future. We don't ask the beasts what they want, rather we do whatever we want. The emergent AI may or may not take into account our desires, our morals and our sense of ethics, but I wouldn't expect it, and I certainly wouldn't count on it. spike From ablainey at aol.com Thu Oct 14 15:57:13 2010 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:57:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Success! In-Reply-To: <201010141421.o9EELeid003532@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201010141421.o9EELeid003532@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <8CD39CF9A0BDB90-1A4C-4A3E@webmail-d094.sysops.aol.com> Yes I am sure this miner inconvenience will be studied and heralded for many years to come. A great result! A -----Original Message----- From: Max More To: Extropy-Chat Sent: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:21 Subject: [ExI] Success! I spend a lot of time studying how individuals and especially organizations make mistakes, due to cognitive biases, leadership errors, and organizational problems, leading to disaster. It's very nice, for a change, to have observed a flawless operation that saved 33 lives. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39664229/ns/world_news-americas/ Max ------------------------------------- Max More, Ph.D. Strategic Philosopher Co-editor, The Transhumanist Reader The Proactionary Project Vice Chair, Humanity+ Extropy Institute Founder www.maxmore.com max at maxmore.com ------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat = -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Oct 14 15:58:14 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 08:58:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] shweeb In-Reply-To: References: <3F7729B2C952427D8CD5C0A8A1289A76@spike><192795.18765.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou ... > Subject: Re: [ExI] shweeb > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 2:50 AM, spike wrote: > > > Ja...Mass transit isn't for everyone, for a very persistent reason: > it doesn't help with the problem of many of us don't want to mix with us... > > And yet in the US you are twice as likely to die as a result > of a car accident as you are to be murdered: > > http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx > http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm > -- > Stathis Papaioannou Sure but let us make the relevant comparison: what is the liklihood of being murdered while using mass transit vs the liklihood of being murdered while driving one's Detroit? The likelihood of catching some disease? What is the probability of being slain, mugged or raped while you are driving? It is also partially psychological: when using mass transit, one is among the proletariat, dependent, helpless as a kitten. When one drives, one is free and empowered, going wherever one wants whenever one wants, no reading of a schedule, dependent on no one, wearing a two ton suit of armor with a fossil-fueled V-8 weapon in one's hands. Ahhh, life is gooood. Perhaps if all the states pass concealed carry laws, one could use mass transit and be as helpless as a kitten with a Smith and Wesson hidden in its fur. spike From pharos at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 15:58:39 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:58:39 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: <4CB70D45.10902@speakeasy.net> References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> <4CB70D45.10902@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/14 Alan Grimes wrote: > Look, Aleksei, Lets start with Bostrom. As far as he is concerned, the > debate on what we should be in the future is long since settled. > Actually, he talks like a 12 year old who's just discovered boobies > about the subject. The only question that he will entertain any > discussion of is whether or not we are already essentially uploads in > someone else's simulation. > > Furthermore, when someone as offensive as "Extropia D'Silva" starts > talking about uploading everyone, I'm usually the *ONLY* person to call > her on it, much less the first. Lord knows what they talk about when I'm > not present. > > -- Alan I think you are over-reacting here. You have to make a distinction between what people write in articles and papers (official views) and idle banter that takes place on forums. I don't believe that Bostrom or Extropia DaSilva (name corrected) would officially state that one of their transhumanist objectives is to upload everyone in the world regardless of their individual desires. Please give references to articles in support if you wish to accuse them of this. Now, in forum discussions, many people might say things off-the-cuff for the sake of argument. Like 'If I was super-intelligent AI that wanted the best for humanity then I might upload everyone into their own virtual world that fulfilled their deepest desires'. But such 'what if?' arguments are not official beliefs. They are suggestions put up to extend discussion and often expected to be shot down in flames. So, don't take discussions too seriously. :) BillK From rpwl at lightlink.com Thu Oct 14 15:59:30 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:59:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: <906B68C5FE7E47148DC248191678F952@spike> References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> <906B68C5FE7E47148DC248191678F952@spike> Message-ID: <4CB728E2.8070503@lightlink.com> spike wrote: > ... >> Alan Grimes wrote: >> What I've learned is that trying to argue with uploaders is hopeless. >> You can't get them on philosophy, you can't get them on >> technicalities, you can't get them on logistics, and you >> can't appeal to a stronger desire. They literally live for >> the sake of sticking their brain in a meat grinder.... Alan > > Alan, their, your and our attitude may be completely irrelevant. When > Eliezer hung out here, we used to argue this a lot, but I was never > convinced we humans have any choice in the matter. I argued we have no > models to even predict how an emergent AI would behave, never mind control > it, or even significantly influence it. He thought we do have some control > in creating a friendly AI, but I have long thought we are cattle on a train > car, with no say in whether we are being taken to be bred in a green pasture > or to the slaughterhouse. > > Outloading is our best hope, but it is only a fond hope rather than a > prediction. Since I am actively doing research in this area I feel obliged to speak up. You would have been right to criticize Eliezer's attitude to friendly AI, since his approach was driven by an extremely narrow mindset about what AI actually is. But in general it is not correct to say that "... we have no models to even predict how an emergent AI would behave...". If you treat AI as about building relaxation systems, you can map the friendliness problem onto something akin to a statistical thermodynamics problem. Molecular systems do not settle into the states they do because some external agency forces them to do so (in the manner of a Yudkowskian, or Asimovian, external friendliness-enforcing logic) but because the molecules are all trying to relax into local states that minimize the breakage of certain constraints. Similarly, an AI in which every aspect of its dynamic is governed by the relaxation fo cosntraints, can be built in such a way that friendliness is incorporated into all the downward gradients that define what the system *wants* to do. Such an AI does not "decide" to be bad any more than a gas can "decide" not to obey Boyles Law. Obviously, this is the merest sketch. But then, my point in mentioning all this is that these issues are not to be resolved by gut feelings and non-technical arguments: this is about the *exact* mechanics of building AI systems. Forgive me, but these days I get pretty frustrated at seeing comments like "we are cattle on a train car, with no say in whether we are being taken to be bred in a green pasture or to the slaughterhouse", when my perspective as a person who is actuallyu trying to design those systems, is that I cannot actually see an EASY way to build AI systems that are both superintelligent AND viciously unstable, unfriendly and violent. Richard Loosemore From pharos at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 16:19:09 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:19:09 +0100 Subject: [ExI] shweeb In-Reply-To: References: <3F7729B2C952427D8CD5C0A8A1289A76@spike> <192795.18765.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:58 PM, spike wrote: > Perhaps if all the states pass concealed carry laws, one could use mass > transit and be as helpless as a kitten with a Smith and Wesson hidden in its > fur. > > Remembering, of course, that in Western Europe where mass transit is wildly popular and only the criminals have Smith and Wessons the murder rate is a quarter of the US rate. ;) (Go on - start a gun rant - I dare you!). BillK From spike66 at att.net Thu Oct 14 16:42:14 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:42:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <6BFA2E2B7B8E422E84AECE4ECC7B8935@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 8:29 AM > ... > > I also take Gregory Stock's Redesigning Humans, which has > indeed very little to say on "migration to other platforms", > to remain quite an influential text for H+ circles. Or am I wrong? Stefano Vaj Where the heck is Gregory Stock these days? He used to hang out here occasionally back in the 90s, was at one of the Extroschmoozes (was it 3? 4?) but then we haven't heard from him in a long time. It was after Metaman was published, because that was the lunch conversation as I recall. Metaman didn't have uploading either, but was into greater interconnectivity of meat-level humans. His vision has come to pass very nicely in most ways. Anyone here buddies with Dr. Stock? spike From spike66 at att.net Thu Oct 14 16:52:26 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 09:52:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Success! In-Reply-To: <8CD39CF9A0BDB90-1A4C-4A3E@webmail-d094.sysops.aol.com> References: <201010141421.o9EELeid003532@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <8CD39CF9A0BDB90-1A4C-4A3E@webmail-d094.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <19034A7F104548698F329DA197867E5C@spike> >>...It's very nice, for a change, to have observed a flawless operation that saved 33 lives. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39664229/ns/world_news-americas/ Max >...Yes I am sure this miner inconvenience will be studied and heralded for many years to come. A great result! A Meanwhile, USian news agencies were reporting the rescue of underage mine workers. Have they no child labor laws in Chile? {8^D It's an outrage, I tells ya! spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Outlook.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 7627 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Outlook.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 10728 bytes Desc: not available URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Oct 14 16:53:41 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:53:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: <4CB70D45.10902@speakeasy.net> References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> <4CB70D45.10902@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <10FE0428710540C1BAD268B7156C0E6A@DFC68LF1> I will repeat what has already been stated: no knowledgeable transhumanist would argue that everyone should be uploaded against their will. A human being must have control over his/her right of body, brain and mind and no one should coerce any human to evolve/morph/upload. Anyone who says otherwise is not a prominent transhumanist (caveat: or has an alternative perspective which does not coerce anyone to do anything they do not want to do.) Natasha Vita-More -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alan Grimes Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 9:02 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: (argh). > Alan, > No prominent transhumanists are arguing that people should be uploaded > even if they don't want to. > You would benefit from paying attention to reality for a change... Look, Aleksei, Lets start with Bostrom. As far as he is concerned, the debate on what we should be in the future is long since settled. Actually, he talks like a 12 year old who's just discovered boobies about the subject. The only question that he will entertain any discussion of is whether or not we are already essentially uploads in someone else's simulation. Now if you collar any of the "prominent transhumanists" you speak of, sure they will croak out "sure sure, the choice is all yours." But when it comes to actually making a promise to that effect, they will sternly refuse, making some excuse about it being redundant or playing into fears. Well, are those fears valid, Furthermore, when someone as offensive as "Extropia D'Silva" starts talking about uploading everyone, I'm usually the *ONLY* person to call her on it, much less the first. Lord knows what they talk about when I'm not present. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Oct 14 16:57:05 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 11:57:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Sound of Silence In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Stefano, I am sorry to hear about your illness. I'm glad you are better. I wish you the best of health. Warmly, Natasha Natasha Vita-More -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 6:09 AM To: World Transhumanist Association Discussion List; ExI chat list; technoprogressive at yahoogroups.com; transhumanistes at yahoogroupes.fr; transumanisti; cosmic-engineers at googlegroups.com Subject: [ExI] Sound of Silence I have been away from the H+ scene for a while owing to the problems related to a very extensive, and sofar entirely asymptomatic, cholesteatoma (a "benign" ear tumor), discovered during a more-or-less occasional checkup, which required some radical, semi-urgent surgery. In fact, while death remained a rather remote prospective, I would have had otherwise to be ready to welcome increasing bone and neural damage, permanent deafness, meningitis, hydrocephalus, and ultimately the loss of pieces of brain through my ear and nose... :-) Such surgery, which I had to undertake while feeling in perfect shape, involved in turn hospitalisation, and a number of consequences such as the section of my chorda tympany nerve (leading to the loss of my sense of taste for the side concerned and to the realisation of how much the related gratifications were important in my life...), vertigo, persistent dizzyness, dramatic albeit unilateral loss of hearing, sleep disorders, not to mention lots of simple, old-fashioned pain which, believe me, is irritating enough even for a Zen transhumanist warrior. :-) On the bright side, in ten months or so I should be able to recover some of my hearing (and stereophony) through some additional, reconstructive surgery; and I should anyway be operational enough by the time when Transvision 2010 takes place in Milan not to miss the opportunity to welcome participants and speakers in the name of the Associazione Italiana Transumanisti together with Giulio Prisco and Riccardo Campa. This experience, which affected a basically "wet" transhumanist who is very much in love with, and proud of, his personal body and its current performances, besides giving me ample opportunities to reconsider the charms of mind uploading ;-) has made me if anything more acutely aware of how primitive and crude even the best treatments money can buy still are, and how most great breakthroughs in medicine actually have taken place roughly in the period 1850-1970, till their lamentable slowing down to a crawl during current years in spite of all the media hype still surrounding them. We may be spending - and perhaps wasting - a lot in health care in most western society, but the legal, cultural, educational, ethical, financial framework is hardly what it should for fundamental research and innovation if we really wanted to invert this trend. -- Stefano Vaj _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From max at maxmore.com Thu Oct 14 17:28:22 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 12:28:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Gregory Stock (was: Re: Towards a new transhumanist movement.) Message-ID: <201010141728.o9EHSTPf011047@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Spike: Greg is doing fine. I talked with him not long ago (he's contributing to The Transhumanist Reader). These days he's focused mainly on his business, Signum Biosciences: www.signumbiosciences.com He on the board: http://www.signumbiosciences.com/board_directors.html Max >Where the heck is Gregory Stock these days? He used to hang out here >occasionally back in the 90s, was at one of the Extroschmoozes (was it 3? >4?) but then we haven't heard from him in a long time. It was after Metaman >was published, because that was the lunch conversation as I recall. Metaman >didn't have uploading either, but was into greater interconnectivity of >meat-level humans. His vision has come to pass very nicely in most ways. > >Anyone here buddies with Dr. Stock? > >spike From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Oct 14 17:28:23 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 13:28:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Success! In-Reply-To: <551324.11434.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <201010141421.o9EELeid003532@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <551324.11434.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <03710B0B-7F96-4D4B-B834-BF2D393F3666@bellsouth.net> On Oct 14, 2010, at 11:38 AM, Dan wrote: > "most major news stories seem to be bad news" Yes but that is actually a reason to be optimistic. News by its very nature is about the unusual and the unexpected; if we lived in a true dystopian society the front page of the New York Times would contain nothing but happy feel-good stories, the thing about the nun who threw 42 baby seals into a wood chipper would just be another day in hell and not worth reporting. > "but this one was good news." It would have been even better it there had been no cave-in, but then it wouldn't be news it would just be another day at work in the mine. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 20:30:08 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:30:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: What Technology Wants In-Reply-To: <20101014110429.99815803@kk.org> References: <20101014110429.99815803@kk.org> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Kevin Kelly Date: Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 3:18 PM Subject: What Technology Wants Hello Friend, My last book appeared 12 years ago. That's a lifetime in internet years. Since that time I've been laboring on a monumental new book called "What Technology Wants." I am relieved that this long-overdue work is finally done, and delighted that Penguin/Viking did a fabulous job in publishing it. The cover is cool, too. It premiers today. As of a few hours ago "What Technology Wants" is available on Amazon in hardcover, Kindle, and audio versions, and at your favorite online or brick bookstore. I feel like shouting from the rooftops. In this book I explore the deeper "meaning" of technology. I view our human world through the eyes of technology, as if it were a living organism, independent of us. I learned a lot from this investigation, and I think I found some answers that helped me evaluate technology in my own life, in a way that might help you do the same. I also changed my mind in the course of writing it and reluctantly concluded that most new technology is inevitable, and so we should make the most of that inevitability. I suppose this book will be controversial. More about "What Technology Wants" can be found on my website, including a lot of flattering endorsements from people I respect, and a few early reviews and mentions, such as ones in the New York Times, Scientific American and the Economist. You have my email. I welcome feedback on the book, comments, tweets, reviews on your blog or Amazon, mentions, and inquiries. I can say without exaggeration that I wrote this book for you, in the hope that as you read it you will be refreshed and encouraged by its grand message of optimism and possibility. Rejoice! Book website http://www.kk.org/books/what-technology-wants.php Amazon page http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0670022152/ref=nosim/kkorg-20 -- KK _______________________________________________ Kevin Kelly * kk at kk.org Senior Maverick for Wired Author of What Technology Wants, available Oct 14, 2010 http://www.kk.org/books/what-technology-wants.php +1 650 284 3303 vox * 149 Amapola Ave, Pacifica, CA 94044 USA My Lifestreams Blog = http://www.kk.org/kk/ -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From agrimes at speakeasy.net Thu Oct 14 21:06:29 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:06:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [technocalypse] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (unknown) Message-ID: <4CB770D5.30201@speakeasy.net> [[ Emphasis added]] -------- Original Message -------- Delivered-To: mailing list technocalypse at yahoogroups.com Date: Sun, 14 Nov 2004 03:59:22 -0600 Subject: [technocalypse] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: (unknown) Reply-To: technocalypse at yahoogroups.com Uploading has been presented as a brain-scanning process, outputting a brainscan file that can be loaded into a brain emulator program running on a computer. The emulator is connected to a virtual world program which emulates familiar surroundings well enough that the emulated brain can orient itself. The virtual world could provide "root" privileges on the host machine, on the other hand it could be nothing more than an addictive video game or a hell simulator, at the discretion of whoever starts the emulator/virtual world programs. There are implications, for instance, with the proper privileges you can make unlimited (potentially edited) copies of a brain. Thus the upload system has no real need for fresh uploadees. It is something of a metaphysical question as to what exactly is in common between the original brain and its emulation. Some people believe that you are killed when your brain is destructively scanned and that the emulated brain is nothing more than software that claims to be you. Others believe in full consciousness transfer. Your hypothetical scenario does not address what happens to the 99.99% of humanity who continue to lead mundane lives while all this is occurring. ####################### I suggest that all that will remain of them after a few decades will be some software running on a computer in a forgotten corner somewhere. I admit that they will think themselves wondrously happy. ####################### ---- Doug On Tue, Nov 09, 2004 at 05:47:39PM -0700, Thomson Comer wrote: > There seems to be a common disagreement about the nature of uploading. > Many people see it as some form of closed system, wherein the uploaded > are given a perfect copy of their current hardware and are then > transplanted into a virtual space identical to their current world, or > near-equivalent. > > > Consider this theoretical future as an exploration of the singularity: ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~--> $9.95 domain names from Yahoo!. Register anything. http://us.click.yahoo.com/J8kdrA/y20IAA/yQLSAA/RCsqlB/TM --------------------------------------------------------------------~-> <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> 3X M at CH!N@ 1!B3R7 at 5 http://www.transtopia.org/ <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> M at YB3 W3\'R3 ON @NO7H3R P1 at N37... M at YB3 W3\'R3 @11 !N5 at N3... --73H 7W!1!6H7 2ON3, 3P!5OD3 79 (D3C. 22, 1961) #-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-# Tip #1: Looking for affordable, reliable, REAL free speech webhosting? Check out http://www.1st-amendment.net ! Tip #2: Going on vacation? List traffic too heavy for your inbox? Switch to web only ("no email") @ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/technocalypse/join #-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-# Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/technocalypse/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: technocalypse-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From agrimes at speakeasy.net Thu Oct 14 21:14:39 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:14:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Re: [technocalypse] Re: Water Ice Jupiter Brains Message-ID: <4CB772BF.6080107@speakeasy.net> Emphasis added, once again. -------- Original Message -------- From: Jake Hamilton Mailing-List: list technocalypse at yahoogroups.com; contact technocalypse-owner at yahoogroups.com Delivered-To: mailing list technocalypse at yahoogroups.com List-Id: Date: Mon, 9 Jan 2006 10:02:42 -0500 Subject: Re: [technocalypse] Re: Water Ice Jupiter Brains Reply-To: technocalypse at yahoogroups.com How could blind evolution create a protetin that a postsingularity computer system couldn't? The formulation and simulation testing of all possible proteins built from all possible building blocks folded in all possible ways would be trivial, given the hundreds of trillions of avabits available in just a fraction of one solar matrix's computational resources. As far as a monument to our origins goes, why need it be in the "real" world? A computer system could model every detail, down to a Planck length in the nanometers, and build a "monument" in another, computational reality. A biosphere in a normal universe is a vast expanse of dumb matter just * asking* any of uncountably finite hordes of intelligences of every stripe, power, and moral/ethical code (or lack thereof) to convert it into smart matter to meet an ever-voracious need for more computational cycles. Not to mention, evolving life would eventually spawn a sapient species, and then you're just back in the exponential cascade model of singularity formation, and 10,000 or so years after origin of primary sapient species you add yet another little inflationary explosion of postorganic intelligence to the roster. Not to mention that a "monument" in digital reality can be backed up, saved, copied, and iterated in different paths and timelines simultaneously to come up with more comprehensive/interesting/manipulatable and deletion/corruption-safe versions. You assume that normal, more-or-less orthohuman (or orthobiological, whatever) people will continue to exist indefinitely beyond the singularity. While possible, I don't think it's very likely. Eventually, the only possibility for the most reactionary of reactionaries who only exist in Reality 1.0 to keep existing that way is in the equivalent of a zoo - which is basically what you're proposing. But even that wouldn't last long - if posthuman intelligences want to keep relatively normal, pre-transcendence intelligences around to be study subjects and playtoys, eventually they're going to bore of the idea of keeping them in some enormously wasteful ################################### material playground - why not just upload them into an identical environment without "telling" them, and keep doing the same research, entertainment, and playtime from there, freeing up resources to build more pocket universes in the process? #################################### Either your idea is a zoo run by the uploaded posthumans, whose demise I've described, or a nature preserve, which eventually just becomes part of the singularity-catalyzed biological-to-machine progression, or a pastoral nostalgia-trip built by orthohuman escapees that hits the final acceleration cascade of singularity formation even faster, probably just a few years. Then it just follows the same pattern/cycle/progression again, over and over and over, existential cowards running from their mind-children, leaving the intelligence booms they fear as their footprints. On 1/9/06, Daniel wrote: > > --- In technocalypse at yahoogroups.com, Jake Hamilton > wrote: > > > > That doesn't make sense. What's wrong with a computer system? Is it > any less > > of a 'reality'? How do you know that our universe isn't itself just > some > > simulation embedded in another, encompassing universe, or a > historical > > simulation being run by our deep-time posthuman mind-children? A > computer > > system, especially one like the kind our downstream selves could > create, is > > no more or less a reality than the universe we currently iterate > in. I'm not > > saying that we should completely give up on or destroy Reality 1.0 > entirely, > > but that doesn't mean we should illogically treat it as a somehow > special, > > sacrosanct objective reality, when in truth that doesn't jibe with > basic > > implications of information theory, nor that it makes sense to > leave most of > > the universe dumb when each teragram of "ensmartened" matter is > another > > new small universe of places, people, minds, information, > and "playgrounds". > > Why leave it at *one* universe, when our 10^16 atoms have the > potential to > > be a billion? > > We do not know if our universe is actually a computer simulation, but > we would be doing ourselves an injustice to believe that we are. > Given the uncertainty of it and the fact that there is absolutely no > proof that we are infact in a simulation, it is reasonable to assume > that we are in a original universe, and not in a simulation. By > leaving biospheres alone and reconfiguring the rest of the matter, > intelligent life would be leaving a monument of it's origins, and a > possible means of future advances, since evolution will continue and > will develop new protein structures that are impossible for even > 10^90 cps computers to conceive (which is the computing power > estimated of the entire universe should we be able to reconfigure it > as computronium). > > Also, you must consider that most people will not turn themselves > into computer programs but many of them will accept computer > technologies that expand their intelligences. These people must be > allowed to live and have places to live as they have just as much > right to exist as the simulated intelligences. So we cannot allow > computer intelligences to convert the Earth and the life on it, or > any place humanity colonizes such as space habitats or exosolar > planets (should we find a way to do so). It would also be a pity if > superintelligences and future unaugmented humans did not work > together, it would not hurt the superintelligences but rather would > give them interesting things to do, and would provide great benefit > to unaugmented humans. > > > > > > DeATh tO tHe LudDiTe iNsEcT thAt PReyS UpOn thE iGnORanCe oF thE peOPle! > > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> > 3X M at CH!N@ 1!B3R7 at 5 > http://www.transtopia.org/ > <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> > > M at YB3 W3\'R3 ON @NO7H3R P1 at N37... > M at YB3 W3\'R3 @11 !N5 at N3... > --73H 7W!1!6H7 2ON3, 3P!5OD3 79 (D3C. 22, 1961) > > #-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-# > > Tip #1: Looking for affordable, reliable, REAL free speech webhosting? > Check out http://www.1st-amendment.net ! > > Tip #2: Going on vacation? List traffic too heavy for your inbox? Switch > to web only ("no email") @ > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/technocalypse/join > > #-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-# > > > ------------------------------ > YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS > > > - Visit your group "technocalypse" > on the web. > > - To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: > technocalypse-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com > > - Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of > Service . > > > ------------------------------ > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] DeATh tO tHe LudDiTe iNsEcT thAt PReyS UpOn thE iGnORanCe oF thE peOPle! <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> 3X M at CH!N@ 1!B3R7 at 5 http://www.transtopia.org/ <><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><> M at YB3 W3\'R3 ON @NO7H3R P1 at N37... M at YB3 W3\'R3 @11 !N5 at N3... --73H 7W!1!6H7 2ON3, 3P!5OD3 79 (D3C. 22, 1961) #-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-# Tip #1: Looking for affordable, reliable, REAL free speech webhosting? Check out http://www.1st-amendment.net ! Tip #2: Going on vacation? List traffic too heavy for your inbox? Switch to web only ("no email") @ http://groups.yahoo.com/group/technocalypse/join #-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-#-# Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/technocalypse/ <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: technocalypse-unsubscribe at yahoogroups.com <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/ From sen.otaku at googlemail.com Thu Oct 14 21:24:06 2010 From: sen.otaku at googlemail.com (Sen Yamamoto) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:24:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Re: [technocalypse] Re: Water Ice Jupiter Brains In-Reply-To: <4CB772BF.6080107@speakeasy.net> References: <4CB772BF.6080107@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: My point would be: why is there the idea that post-singularity that natural-humans and post-humans/computer-intellegece must be mutually exclusive? And in a way- I think the idea of what a "natural" human is will most likely change drastically. Even in our time "natural" humans are increasingly rare. Vaccinations are quite common. Unless I have misunderstood the article? ~LeMorgon From kanzure at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 21:28:30 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 16:28:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Re: [technocalypse] Re: Water Ice Jupiter Brains In-Reply-To: References: <4CB772BF.6080107@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Sen Yamamoto wrote: > Unless I have misunderstood the article? I suspect Alan is sending these emails as "proof of people who want to force you to upload". After reading these emails he has sent in the last few minutes, I am unconvined of his original assertion in his previous email. These emails you're sending, Alan, are not evidence of some plot to force you to upload. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From agrimes at speakeasy.net Thu Oct 14 21:29:18 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:29:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Cosmic Engineers] Re: Sharing/engineering proposal Message-ID: <4CB7762E.1060105@speakeasy.net> [[ no emphasis necessary]]] #############3 Subject: [Cosmic Engineers] Re: Sharing/engineering proposal From: Extropia DaSilva To: Cosmic Engineers Reply-To: cosmic-engineers at googlegroups.com Sender: cosmic-engineers at googlegroups.com 'You see Giulio, Extropia DOES intend to forcefully upload people and is on record as saying so'. I suggested that 'we' (and by 'we' I meant our posthuman desendents, if any) might opt to convert the planet into computronium and run everybody as uploads in a simulation indisinguishable from reality, as perceived by the human senses. Anybody who did not want to be uploaded would be uploaded anyway, and we would edit out the memory of that event. So, such people continue living in a reality indistinguishable from the one they were in before. They are happy, and the posthuman civilization has aquired a nice large chunk of computronium, so they are happy as well. Now, maybe it is not physically possible to actually carry out this proposal. And, if it is achievable in principle, there may well be good ethical/ moral reasons why the project should never go ahead. Anybody is free to debunk the feasibility of this scheme, or to show exactly why transfering somebody from one simulated approximation of reality to a functionally identical simulated approximation of reality (albeit one running on quite different hardware) is so morally outrageous that any sentient being would never choose to impliment such a scheme. I am afraid I do not believe that any idea or suggestion is so dangerous that it should not be uttered. That does not mean all ideas should be put into practice, of course. Clearly not. But, surely, we should have the right to propose any idea, provided we reserve others the right to expose flaws in that argument, in whatever shape or form such flaws may come in? --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Cosmic Engineers" group. To post to this group, send email to cosmic-engineers at googlegroups.com To unsubscribe from this group, send email to cosmic-engineers+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/cosmic-engineers?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- From sen.otaku at googlemail.com Thu Oct 14 21:36:56 2010 From: sen.otaku at googlemail.com (Sen Yamamoto) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 17:36:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Cosmic Engineers] Re: Sharing/engineering proposal In-Reply-To: <4CB7762E.1060105@speakeasy.net> References: <4CB7762E.1060105@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: 1- this presupposes a beginning happiness 2- also supposes no coding glitches 3- assumes that such a person would not change their mind and later decide to upload... that would be a peice of programming 4- People would notice if they were uploaded if it was superior to natural existance... no disease etc. (#-Assumes that uploading is somehow superior to natural existance- i cant argue this either way- simply something that i dont often see adressed.)
Anybody who did not want to be uploaded would be uploaded anyway, and we would edit out the memory of that event. So, such people continue living in a reality indistinguishable from the one they were in before. They are happy, and the posthuman civilization has aquired a nice large chunk of computronium, so they are happy as well.
From pharos at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 22:02:22 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 23:02:22 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Re: [technocalypse] Re: Water Ice Jupiter Brains In-Reply-To: References: <4CB772BF.6080107@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/14 Bryan Bishop wrote: > I suspect Alan is sending these emails as "proof of people who want to force > you to upload". After reading these emails he has sent in the last few > minutes, I am unconvined of his original assertion in his previous email. > These emails you're sending, Alan, are not evidence of some plot to force > you to upload. > > I agree. These are just quotes from rambling forum discussions. You could probably find many quotes saying exactly the opposite and everything in between. People discuss every far out possibility - that's what forums are for. Alan - your accusation needs verifiable references from published, well-reasoned articles. Not wild forum chit-chat. BillK From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Oct 14 23:54:06 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:54:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Re: [technocalypse] Re: Water Ice Jupiter Brains In-Reply-To: References: <4CB772BF.6080107@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 6:02 PM, BillK wrote: > I agree. These are just quotes from rambling forum discussions. You > could probably find many quotes saying exactly the opposite and > everything in between. > People discuss every far out possibility - that's what forums are for. > > Alan - your accusation needs verifiable references from published, > well-reasoned articles. Not wild forum chit-chat. I'm going to find references to the expression "Kill 'em all and let God sort 'em out" and claim that is an example of the murderous intent of believers in God. Or "This dessert is to die for" is describing such a superlative confection that one really has nothing else to live for after attaining it; though perhaps it rather implies that the evolutionary advantage of one's tribal group would be increased by this after-meal treat despite one's own discontinuation as fair price. At least we're discussing 100% computronium conversions for the advancement of uploaded humanity instead of the 100% paper-clip universe for the personal satisfaction of a deranged MNT-capable AI. Also good that we're not going on about a Philosophical Zombie Apocalypse From stathisp at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 00:54:26 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:54:26 +1100 Subject: [ExI] shweeb In-Reply-To: References: <3F7729B2C952427D8CD5C0A8A1289A76@spike> <192795.18765.qm@web30105.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 2:58 AM, spike wrote: > Sure but let us make the relevant comparison: what is the liklihood of being > murdered while using mass transit vs the liklihood of being murdered while > driving one's Detroit? ?The likelihood of catching some disease? ?What is > the probability of being slain, mugged or raped while you are driving? Perhaps you are more likely to be mugged or murdered on public transport, but you are more likely to *die or be seriously injured* in a car. Nevertheless, people feel safer in cars because they think they have more control. It's irrational. Would you rather have your wallet stolen at knifepoint or your chest crushed by the steering column? -- Stathis Papaioannou From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 02:57:04 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 19:57:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] funny transhumanist story Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > I will repeat what has already been stated: no knowledgeable transhumanist > would argue that everyone should be uploaded against their will. > > A human being must have control over his/her right of body, brain and mind > and no one should coerce any human to evolve/morph/upload. I outlined a story where an evil character uploaded a mess of millennial Christians, I forget exactly why, on the day they had predicted the rapture. After a couple of weeks they were noticed to be missing. The cops found them all at home in cocoons plugged into the net. The story revolves around this poor rookie cop who was sent into the simulation to inform them that they were not in Heaven after all, but had been uploaded as a joke. They were offered a chance to go back to real life. For the reasons Natasha gives, this took their informed consent, you can't just boot them out of a simulation even if they had been put there illegally. Also they were in a 50 to 1 speed up simulation so as far as they were concerned they had been in heaven for two years subjective. The mechanism used was non destructive, fully reversible so they could be put back in their bodies, with or without memory wipe of the experiences. Question, can you get bored in Heaven? Lots of story possibilities that I didn't develop even in outline. Keith > Anyone who says otherwise is not a prominent transhumanist (caveat: or has > an alternative perspective which does not coerce anyone to do anything they > do not want to do.) > > > Natasha Vita-More > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alan Grimes > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 9:02 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. > > chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: > (argh). > >> Alan, > >> No prominent transhumanists are arguing that people should be uploaded >> even if they don't want to. > >> You would benefit from paying attention to reality for a change... > > > Look, Aleksei, Lets start with Bostrom. As far as he is concerned, the > debate on what we should be in the future is long since settled. > Actually, he talks like a 12 year old who's just discovered boobies about > the subject. The only question that he will entertain any discussion of is > whether or not we are already essentially uploads in someone else's > simulation. > > Now if you collar any of the "prominent transhumanists" you speak of, sure > they will croak out "sure sure, the choice is all yours." But when it comes > to actually making a promise to that effect, they will sternly refuse, > making some excuse about it being redundant or playing into fears. Well, are > those fears valid, > > Furthermore, when someone as offensive as "Extropia D'Silva" starts talking > about uploading everyone, I'm usually the *ONLY* person to call her on it, > much less the first. Lord knows what they talk about when I'm not present. > > -- > DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. > DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. > Powers are not rights. > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From giulio at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 09:20:21 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:20:21 +0200 Subject: [ExI] See you in Milan at TransVision 2010? In-Reply-To: <201010141531.o9EFVcvG013924@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201010141531.o9EFVcvG013924@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: Abstract of Max' presentation at TransVision 2010: http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/transvision-2010-presentation-by-max-more/ On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 5:31 PM, Max More wrote: > Rather belatedly, I've given Giulio the title and abstract for my > TransVision talk: > > "The Expanded Self: The Past, Present, and Future of Being You" > > So, who is coming from this list? > > http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/tv2010/ > > Max > > > > ------------------------------------- > Max More, Ph.D. > Strategic Philosopher > Co-editor, The Transhumanist Reader > The Proactionary Project > Vice Chair, Humanity+ > Extropy Institute Founder > www.maxmore.com > max at maxmore.com > ------------------------------------- > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 11:24:54 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:24:54 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: <10FE0428710540C1BAD268B7156C0E6A@DFC68LF1> References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> <4CB70D45.10902@speakeasy.net> <10FE0428710540C1BAD268B7156C0E6A@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: On 14 October 2010 18:53, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > A human being must have control over his/her right of body, brain and mind > and no one should coerce any human to evolve/morph/upload. > This makes me think of another important point. I suspect that everybody is forced to evolve/morph, OK, not upload, irrespective of what we may think of it, and always has been since the birth of life, and probably, albeit more metaphorically, even before. There is simply no way that even human humans may remain "just the same" for any substantial length of time. A big issue, however, remains the fact of whether we are allowed to evolve and morph along (possibly) diverging lines, or we are instead threatened by some forced (or even enforced) reduction of diversity. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 11:38:44 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:38:44 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Gregory Stock (was: Re: Towards a new transhumanist movement.) In-Reply-To: <201010141728.o9EHSTPf011047@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201010141728.o9EHSTPf011047@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: On 14 October 2010 19:28, Max More wrote: > Spike: Greg is doing fine. I talked with him not long ago (he's > contributing to The Transhumanist Reader). These days he's focused mainly on > his business, Signum Biosciences: > > www.signumbiosciences.com > > He on the board: > http://www.signumbiosciences.com/board_directors.html > Thank you, interesting news. I checked, and found: <> OTOH, < .>> Let us hope this will give him the time to write a few more books. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 12:03:32 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 05:03:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: <10FE0428710540C1BAD268B7156C0E6A@DFC68LF1> References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> <4CB70D45.10902@speakeasy.net> <10FE0428710540C1BAD268B7156C0E6A@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: This seems to have been lost. Using the original thread this time. On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > I will repeat what has already been stated: no knowledgeable transhumanist > would argue that everyone should be uploaded against their will. > > A human being must have control over his/her right of body, brain and mind > and no one should coerce any human to evolve/morph/upload. I outlined a story where an evil character uploaded a mess of millennial Christians, I forget exactly why, on the day they had predicted the rapture. After a couple of weeks they were noticed to be missing. The cops found them all at home in cocoons plugged into the net. The story revolves around this poor rookie cop who was sent into the simulation to inform them that they were not in Heaven after all, but had been uploaded as a joke. They were offered a chance to go back to real life. For the reasons Natasha gives, this took their informed consent, you can't just boot them out of a simulation even if they had been put there illegally. Also they were in a 50 to 1 speed up simulation so as far as they were concerned they had been in heaven for two years subjective. The mechanism used was non destructive, fully reversible so they could be put back in their bodies, with or without memory wipe of the experiences. Question: can you get bored in Heaven? Lots of story possibilities that I didn't develop even in outline. Keith > Anyone who says otherwise is not a prominent transhumanist (caveat: or has > an alternative perspective which does not coerce anyone to do anything they > do not want to do.) > > > Natasha Vita-More > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alan Grimes > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 9:02 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. > > chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: > (argh). > >> Alan, > >> No prominent transhumanists are arguing that people should be uploaded >> even if they don't want to. > >> You would benefit from paying attention to reality for a change... > > > Look, Aleksei, Lets start with Bostrom. As far as he is concerned, the > debate on what we should be in the future is long since settled. > Actually, he talks like a 12 year old who's just discovered boobies about > the subject. The only question that he will entertain any discussion of is > whether or not we are already essentially uploads in someone else's > simulation. > > Now if you collar any of the "prominent transhumanists" you speak of, sure > they will croak out "sure sure, the choice is all yours." But when it comes > to actually making a promise to that effect, they will sternly refuse, > making some excuse about it being redundant or playing into fears. Well, are > those fears valid, > > Furthermore, when someone as offensive as "Extropia D'Silva" starts talking > about uploading everyone, I'm usually the *ONLY* person to call her on it, > much less the first. Lord knows what they talk about when I'm not present. > > -- > DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. > DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. > Powers are not rights. > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From bbenzai at yahoo.com Fri Oct 15 13:04:01 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 06:04:01 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Cosmic Engineers] Re: Sharing/engineering proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <7795.12124.qm@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Sen Yamamoto wrote: > (#-Assumes that uploading is somehow superior to natural > existance- i > cant argue this either way- simply something that i dont > often see > adressed.) ??? The assumption (conclusion, rather) that uploading is inherently superior to 'natural' existence (biological existence) is one of the cornerstones of transhumanism, at least for many transhumanists (depending on their opinion on whether an upload can 'be' you. For me it's a no-brainer, but that's a separate argument). How's this for 'somehow' superior?: No susceptibility to biological/chemical attack (bacterial/viral infections and poisoning) Vastly more robust physical structure (potentially, anyway. Nothing stopping you uploading into computational aerogel, though, if you really wanted!) No deterioration with time (not strictly true, but the deterioration of the kind of hardware envisioned would be far, far slower) Access to your own mental architecture, and the possibility of easily and reversibly altering it, opening up the way to improve your mental capacities, in whatever way is important to you Copying/Backing up your mind, with all that that implies Access to virtual realities that are as real as anything you can experience now, and much more varied. Vastly reduced energy and material resource requirements (Probably) Increased speed of cognition and/or the ability to speed up/slow down your mental processes Ability to transmit your mind to remote locations with suitable equipment to recieve and run it (effectively, travel at the speed of light) Reparing the hardware when and if necessary would be vastly easier, so lifespans would be unlimited, or at least indefinite, even if you decided to stay in the same hardware indefinitely (not very likely, I'd think) Ability to download into a variety of physical bodies (or simply remote-control them), to operate in different 'real-life' environments There's 11 reasons why being an upload is better than being 2 pounds of fragile jelly, just off the top of my head. There are certainly more. Ben Zaiboc From giulio at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 13:11:12 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:11:12 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Cosmic Engineers] Re: Sharing/engineering proposal In-Reply-To: <4CB7762E.1060105@speakeasy.net> References: <4CB7762E.1060105@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: I think forwarding messages to other lists without the consent of the originator is not kosher. Alan, perhaps you should take your obsessions elsewhere. I should warn other readers that AG is banned from most transhumanist lists for rude and abusive behavior. Which, I must concede, is not the case here so far, but just to set the precedents. 2010/10/14 Alan Grimes : > [[ no emphasis necessary]]] > > #############3 > Subject: [Cosmic Engineers] Re: Sharing/engineering proposal > From: Extropia DaSilva > To: Cosmic Engineers > Reply-To: cosmic-engineers at googlegroups.com > Sender: cosmic-engineers at googlegroups.com > > > 'You see Giulio, Extropia DOES intend to forcefully upload people and > is on record as saying so'. > > I suggested that 'we' (and by 'we' I meant our posthuman desendents, > if any) might opt to convert the planet into computronium and run > everybody as uploads in a simulation indisinguishable from reality, as > perceived by the human senses. Anybody who did not want to be uploaded > would be uploaded anyway, and we would edit out the memory of that > event. So, such people continue living in a reality indistinguishable > from the one they were in before. They are happy, and the posthuman > civilization has aquired a nice large chunk of computronium, so they > are happy as well. > > Now, maybe it is not physically possible to actually carry out this > proposal. And, if it is achievable in principle, there may well be > good ethical/ moral reasons why the project should never go ahead. > Anybody is free to debunk the feasibility of this scheme, or to show > exactly why transfering somebody from one simulated approximation of > reality to a functionally identical simulated approximation of reality > (albeit one running on quite different hardware) is so morally > outrageous that any sentient being would never choose to impliment > such a scheme. > > I am afraid I do not believe that any idea or suggestion is so > dangerous that it should not be uttered. That does not mean all ideas > should be put into practice, of course. Clearly not. But, surely, we > should have the right to propose any idea, provided we reserve others > the right to expose flaws in that argument, in whatever shape or form > such flaws may come in? > > > > > > --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > Groups "Cosmic Engineers" group. > To post to this group, send email to cosmic-engineers at googlegroups.com > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > cosmic-engineers+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/cosmic-engineers?hl=en > -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~--- > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 13:14:55 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:14:55 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> <4CB70D45.10902@speakeasy.net> <10FE0428710540C1BAD268B7156C0E6A@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: Keith wrote: "Question: can you get bored in Heaven?" The heaven that was shoved down my throat when I was a kid sounded pretty dull, not least of all because I was told I would never die when I had no concept of mortality anyway. And it was implied I would be sitting around with a bunch of old people who would be ensured safe passage and whose idea of a good time seemed to be sitting around watching reruns of Lawrence Welk on Sunday afternoon. But a heaven designed with the knowledge of our need for accomplishment and that challenges us in some meaningful way perhaps wouldn't be. One only has to look at the stories we tell each other to see what we value, and in almost every case something needs to be at stake--usually something very important, like a human life, or freedom, or identify -- in order for us to achieve that 'epic win' that makes us feel it is or was all worthwhile. The question I would ask myself is this: can human beings maintain a sense of wonder and curiosity and a spirit of discovery if there is no longer anything at stake? If we were uploaded into a simulation that ensures our survival under optimum conditions, do those conditions include a sense of mild oppression and a need to pool our resources and work together against a common enemy, whether that enemy be death, disease, ignorance, political ill will, etc? Even a powerful being with in innate benevolence (say what some people call the seed AI) must feel that there is something to struggle against, otherwise there would be no need to be benevolent. And the problem with designing a simulation that way is that it would, at base, be utterly false, because you couldn't tell the consciousness trapped in that simulation the truth: that all their problems were simply designed that way to keep them happy. Therefore all their achievements were false too, because there was nothing to achieve in the first place. This is all dependent, of course, on the the concept of individual human identity. Maybe a human being with rational cognitive process and without individual identity that seems dependent upon and defined by conflict would define happiness in a completely different way. Who knows? My identity is still very sharp, and flawed, and shaped by the pressures that formed it. In truth, my consciousness seems meaured by it, and so it is nearly impossible for me to imagine awareness without it. I find it interesting that the early Christian gnostics were playing around with this idea millennia before the rest of us. The real hero of the old testament for them was the serpent, for it offered Adam and Eve a glimpse of the truth. That the endless conflict and suffering that human beings endured was simply a realistic simulation by a jealous and clever minor God, who had locked them in this physical prison to keep them subject. That is not much different from those who suggest we could already be living in someone else's simulation. Darren On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:03 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > This seems to have been lost. Using the original thread this time. > > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 9:53 AM, Natasha Vita-More > wrote: > > I will repeat what has already been stated: no knowledgeable > transhumanist > > would argue that everyone should be uploaded against their will. > > > > A human being must have control over his/her right of body, brain and > mind > > and no one should coerce any human to evolve/morph/upload. > > I outlined a story where an evil character uploaded a mess of > millennial Christians, I forget exactly why, on the day they had > predicted the rapture. After a couple of weeks they were noticed to > be missing. The cops found them all at home in cocoons plugged into > the net. The story revolves around this poor rookie cop who was sent > into the simulation to inform them that they were not in Heaven after > all, but had been uploaded as a joke. They were offered a chance to > go back to real life. For the reasons Natasha gives, this took their > informed consent, you can't just boot them out of a simulation even if > they had been put there illegally. > > Also they were in a 50 to 1 speed up simulation so as far as they were > concerned they had been in heaven for two years subjective. > > The mechanism used was non destructive, fully reversible so they could > be put back in their bodies, with or without memory wipe of the > experiences. Question: can you get bored in Heaven? > > Lots of story possibilities that I didn't develop even in outline. > > Keith > > > > Anyone who says otherwise is not a prominent transhumanist (caveat: or > has > > an alternative perspective which does not coerce anyone to do anything > they > > do not want to do.) > > > > > > Natasha Vita-More > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Alan Grimes > > Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 9:02 AM > > To: ExI chat list > > Subject: Re: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. > > > > chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: > > (argh). > > > >> Alan, > > > >> No prominent transhumanists are arguing that people should be uploaded > >> even if they don't want to. > > > >> You would benefit from paying attention to reality for a change... > > > > > > Look, Aleksei, Lets start with Bostrom. As far as he is concerned, the > > debate on what we should be in the future is long since settled. > > Actually, he talks like a 12 year old who's just discovered boobies about > > the subject. The only question that he will entertain any discussion of > is > > whether or not we are already essentially uploads in someone else's > > simulation. > > > > Now if you collar any of the "prominent transhumanists" you speak of, > sure > > they will croak out "sure sure, the choice is all yours." But when it > comes > > to actually making a promise to that effect, they will sternly refuse, > > making some excuse about it being redundant or playing into fears. Well, > are > > those fears valid, > > > > Furthermore, when someone as offensive as "Extropia D'Silva" starts > talking > > about uploading everyone, I'm usually the *ONLY* person to call her on > it, > > much less the first. Lord knows what they talk about when I'm not > present. > > > > -- > > DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. > > DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. > > Powers are not rights. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 > -- "I don't regret the kingdoms. What sense in borders and nations and patriotism? But I miss the kings." -*Harold and Maude* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 13:48:07 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 15:48:07 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> <4CB70D45.10902@speakeasy.net> <10FE0428710540C1BAD268B7156C0E6A@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: On 15 October 2010 14:03, Keith Henson wrote: > Question: can you get bored in Heaven? Why, I would not know. But for me personally most of the interest involved in transhumanism and the advocacy for a posthuman change has more to do with the values of self-overcoming, knowledge, self-empowerment, adventure than with the quest for happiness or the end of conflicts. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From agrimes at speakeasy.net Fri Oct 15 13:57:27 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:57:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Cosmic Engineers] Re: Sharing/engineering proposal In-Reply-To: <7795.12124.qm@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <7795.12124.qm@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CB85DC7.3040404@speakeasy.net> chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: [[ What ever happened to the Mozilla web browser?? =( ]] > Sen Yamamoto wrote: > >> (#-Assumes that uploading is somehow superior to natural >> existance- i >> cant argue this either way- simply something that i dont >> often see >> adressed.) [...] > There's 11 reasons why being an upload is better than being 2 pounds of fragile jelly, just off the top of my head. There are certainly more. > Ben Zaiboc GOOD FOR YOU, BEN. Now, here's your question: "Am I so wrong for proposing a movement to achieve ***many of the same goals***, in a way that is more compatible with my own psychological, spiritual, aesthetic, practical, and logistical needs?" Bonus question: "Why is it always assumed/asserted/implied that the goals you list are entirely contingent on being an upload?" -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From timhalterman at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 15:00:45 2010 From: timhalterman at gmail.com (Tim Halterman) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 10:00:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net> <4CB70D45.10902@speakeasy.net> <10FE0428710540C1BAD268B7156C0E6A@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 7:03 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > Question: can you get bored in Heaven? > > Keith Given Heaven lasts for an eternity and Heaven is not all of existence I would eventually become bored. I'm one to believe that I can only appreciate and have x amount of happiness if I've appreciated x amount of sadness and can only find peace when I've experienced all there is of both. An eternity of "happiness" is meaningless and nonsensical to me. The only way I could imagine myself not being bored in Heaven is if: a. I'm being deceived into thinking it's more than it is b. Some altercation to my consciousness has taken place to remove the desire to become omniscient. I'm not sure people could call Heaven a place where you are eternally deceived (a) and for the later I guess that is no longer "me" (b). -Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Oct 15 16:33:23 2010 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 11:33:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. In-Reply-To: References: <4CB680E8.8090307@speakeasy.net><4CB70D45.10902@speakeasy.net><10FE0428710540C1BAD268B7156C0E6A@DFC68LF1> Message-ID: <6DBFE7F3610E4DE0B5F14564B4CB0ED9@DFC68LF1> Animals die off if they can't or won't adapt. Natasha Vita-More _____ From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj Sent: Friday, October 15, 2010 6:25 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Towards a new transhumanist movement. On 14 October 2010 18:53, Natasha Vita-More wrote: A human being must have control over his/her right of body, brain and mind and no one should coerce any human to evolve/morph/upload. This makes me think of another important point. I suspect that everybody is forced to evolve/morph, OK, not upload, irrespective of what we may think of it, and always has been since the birth of life, and probably, albeit more metaphorically, even before. There is simply no way that even human humans may remain "just the same" for any substantial length of time. A big issue, however, remains the fact of whether we are allowed to evolve and morph along (possibly) diverging lines, or we are instead threatened by some forced (or even enforced) reduction of diversity. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 16:40:00 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:40:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Cosmic Engineers] Re: Sharing/engineering proposal In-Reply-To: <7795.12124.qm@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <7795.12124.qm@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: snip > > No susceptibility to biological/chemical attack (bacterial/viral infections and poisoning) Sigh. The trade off for not getting the flu is that you are now subject to infection by some horribly evolved version of Stuxnet. Perhaps that's the real answer to the Fermi paradox. Technophiles always figure out uploading and are then eaten by some nasty computer virus. > Vastly more robust physical structure (potentially, anyway. ?Nothing stopping you uploading into computational aerogel, though, if you really wanted!) > > No deterioration with time (not strictly true, but the deterioration of the kind of hardware envisioned would be far, far slower) > > Access to your own mental architecture, and the possibility of easily and reversibly altering it, opening up the way to improve your mental capacities, in whatever way is important to you This is lethal. At least nobody is going to recognize a person who mucks around with their internal state variables. See Society of Mind for discussions of these points. > Copying/Backing up your mind, with all that that implies If offers some possibility you could be restored after mucking with yer mind or being eaten by a virus. > Access to virtual realities that are as real as anything you can experience now, and much more varied. You mean like WoW only even more addictive? snip Ben, I am not really pouring cold water on your ideas, which are very much in tune with those discussed on the early extropian list. But I do urge caution. Keith > Ben Zaiboc From kanzure at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 17:09:13 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:09:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Updates to "Has DIYbio been in the news?" on the FAQ Message-ID: Hey all, I've been updating the list of DIYbio-related articles on openwetware: tiny link: http://bit.ly/diybionews full: http://openwetware.org/wiki/DIYbio/FAQ#Has_DIYbio_been_in_the_news.3F Last time I sent this out was in March, and since then there's been ~80 new articles: http://groups.google.com/group/diybio/browse_thread/thread/c5d38ccde613e207 Here's the updated list. - 2010-10-15: The Spread of Do-It-Yourself Biotech( slashdot.org) - 2010-10-12: Biohack the Planet! A New Generation of Hackers Sweep Across the Country( blogs.kentlaw.edu) - 2010-10-11: Garage biotech in Nature magazine( makezine.com) (crosspost ; Lava-Amp) - 2010-10-08: On the importance of sequenced model organisms, & a crude taxonomy of their users( orthonormalruss.blogspot.com) - 2010-10-08: The Garage Lab ( genomeweb.com) - 2010-10-07: More on Garage Biotech( pipeline.corante.com) - 2010-10-06: Editorial: Garage biology: Amateur scientists who experiment at home should be welcomed by the professionals( nature.com) - 2010-10-06: Garage biotech: Life hackers( nature.com) - 2010-10-04: On spoofing ( ellingtonlab.org) - 2010-10-01: DIYbio NYC on the BioBus( makezine.com) - 2010-09-29: Citizen Science and Biocurious( sugru.com) - 2010-09-28: Interview with Melanie Swan of DIYgenomics( makezine.com) - 2010-09-27: DIYbio NYC/BioBus Collaboration Wins MAKE Magazine Editors' Choice Award( diybionyc.blogspot.com) - 2010-09-27: Genetic Science Oozes Out of Amateurs' Garages( livescience.com) - 2010-09-25: On curiosity ( ellingtonlab.org) - 2010-09-23: Biohackers aim to open Silicon Valley lab for group research and lessons ( mercurynews.com) - 2010-09-20: $30,000 Given by 200+ People to Open Biotechnology Hackerspace( medgadget.com) - 2010-09-18: An interview with Mark Frauenfelder( openwear.org) - 2010-09-17: BioCurious and the DIY Science Movement( kickstarter.com) - 2010-09-15: Quick thoughts on the bioethics commission meeting(sciencepark.cc) - 2010-09-11: The future of biotech patents( hatewasabi.wordpress.com) - 2010-09-01: Biotech revolution must start with education( hplusmagazine.com) - 2010-09-01: Do-It-Yourself Bioengineers Bedeviled by Society's Paranoia( genengnews.com) - 2010-08-25: itty bitty hydroponic grow box( boingboing.net) - 2010-08-24: Cheap PCR: new low cost machines challenge traditional designs( biotechniques.com) - 2010-08-24: Biohackers ? the geneticists in the garage( euroscientist.com) - 2010-08-18: Otyp nears Kickstarter goal to make DNA thermal cyclers for high schoolers( boingboing.net) - 2010-08-17: Synthetic biology, ethics, and the hacker culture( 2020science.org) - 2010-08-16: OTYP is Making Biotech Cool( huffingtonpost.com) - 2010-08-03: Making the modern do-it-yourself biology laboratory (video)( singularityhub.com) - 2010-08-03: Citizen Science, Microfinanced Research, Patent Trolls, and Pharma Prizes: A Final Dispatch from Open Science Summit( reason.com) - 2010-08-02: Biotech movement hopes to spur rise of citizen scientists( boston.com) - 2010-07-30: Review of Open Science Summit 2010 (Thursday session)( singularityhub.com) - 2010-07-30: Crowd-sourced science funding( blogs.nature.com) - 2010-07-30: Scenes from the Open Science Summit( reason.com) - 2010-07-15: Eri Gentry's biotech revolution( wired.co.uk) also on diybio.org - 2010-07-14: DIY Biotechnologists Go Looking for a Bigger Garage( theatlantic.com) - 2010-07-07: The Open Science Shift( xconomy.com) - 2010-07-07: A new biology in the twenty first century: the project( fieldtest.us) - 2010-07-06: Curing Cancer in a Garage?( iftf.org) - 2010-07-05: Help fund a hackerspace for biology( boingboing.net) - 2010-07-05: Biocurious; a Hackerspace for Biotechnology. Please Help! - 2010-06-30: The New Hacker Hobby That Will Change the World( technewsworld.com); (Hacker News) - 2010-06-29: Responsible science for DIY biologists( prnewswire.com) - 2010-06-26: Let's get the biotech revolution started - support biocurious! - 2010-06-22: Storm the Royal Society? - 2010-06-22: The science behind the tour - 2010-06-22: Citizen scientists: easy ideas for kids and adults to study the environment( annarbor.com) - 2010-06-22: Institute for the Future Announces BodyShock: Call for Entries( pr-inside.com) - 2010-06-22: Five mobile health contests you should know( mobihealthnews.com) - 2010-06-21: Do we need a DIYbio Academy?( molecularist.com) - 2010-06-21: Biotech Tools( ponoko.com) - 2010-06-16: Bringing biohacking to the masses( blogs.discovermagazine.com) - 2010-06-16: Citizen Science: Birders Contribute Valuable Data on Invasive Plant Species( sciencedaily.com) - 2010-06-16: Fluorescent Black Arrives in July - 2010-06-14: Recognizing Lightweight Innovation: Key Characteristics and Technology Drivers (iftf.org) - 2010-06-11: Cockroach pimps a sweet ride( hackaday.com) - 2010-06-07: The Tumbling Walls of Formal Science( fightaging.org) - 2010-06-03: The importance of speed in PCR( openpcr.org) - 2010-06-01: Not so scary: synthetic life( poptranshumanism.com) - 2010-06-01: Growing Public Interest In Genetic Science Sparks Some Bio-Security Concerns(National Defense Magazine) - 2010-05-25: Who's afraid of synthetic biology?( reason.com) - 2010-05-20: Make-offs: DIY indie innovations. How low-cost, open-source tools are energizing DIY.(O'Reilly Radar) - 2010-05-04: Citizen Scientists Attract FBI's WMD Unit(Burn After Reading) - 2010-04-26: Amateurs explore their genomes via DNA cocktail( boston.com) - 2010-04-23: G?r-det-selv-biotek er p? vej til din garage(Ingeni?ren) - 2010-04-09: Garage biology - 2010-04-09: 3D printing aids biohacking( fabbaloo.com) - 2010-04-09: Bioengineering technology is maturing, and so is its vocabulary - 2010-03-31: Life hacking with 3D printing and DIY DNA kits(BBC) - 2010-03-28: The shift from top-down to bottom-up production(brief mention) - 2010-03-25: Andrew Hessel talks about synthetic biology and diybio(diybio4beginners) - 2010-03-24: Garage Biology Bad for Science? - 2010-03-23: DIYbio and the Gentleman Scientist - 2010-03-12: Garage biotech(In The Pipeline) - 2010-03-11: The Roving Eye: Clamatology, A Bio-Garage In Silicon Valley, Mickey The Crony Capitalist - 2010-03-11: BioSecurity: How synthetic biology is changing the way we look at biology and biological threats - 2010-03-08: Garage Biology in Silicon Valley; see it on Make Magazine, The Technium (Kevin Kelly), ... - 2010-03-07: The promise of biotech - 2010-03-04: Letters: Do it yourself genetic engineering(NY Times) - 2010-03-03: Biology Student to Hold Biohacking Meeting at CCBC - 2010-03-02: Inexpensive gene copier for DIY molecular biology( boingboing.net) - 2010-02-26: Biotech on a Budget - 2010-02-16: DIY Genetics-Biotechnology by Parents, Artists, and...Potential Terrorists( blogs.kentlaw.edu) - 2010-02-16: From Hackerspace To Your Garage: Downloading DIY Hardware Over the Web(H+ Magazine) - 2010-02-14: The wild world of DIY synthetic biology: Get your designer life forms here!( popsci.com) - 2010-02-14: Do-it-yourself genetic engineering(NY Times) - 2010-02-02: Biohacking - Auf der Suche nach Hacks und Exploits in Molek?len und Genstr?ngen (Chaos Radio Podcast Network) - 2010-01-25: Why DIY Bio?(H+ Magazine) - 2010-01-25: Open-Source Lab Promises Free DNA Parts for Bioengineers( popsci.com) - 2010-01-22: DIYbio: Growing movement takes on agingin H+ Magazine ; discussed on Slashdot, redditand ycombinator hackernews ; futurismic; - 2010-01-10: Reinventing the Pharmaceutical Industry, without the Industry (The Futurist) - 2009-12-27: Taking Biological Research Out Of The Laboratory(NPR) - 2009-12-20: Do-it-yourself biology grows with technology(SF Chronicle) - 2009-12-14: The need for plain English diybio safety guidelines - 2009-12-14: Bio-Bastler. ?Kreative Wissenschaftsb?rger?.(Profil) - 2009-11-20: Gen-Manipulation am heimischen K?chentisch( welt.de) - 2009-11-13: diybio-nyc at nycresistor - 2009-10-31: LavaAmp: Cheap Pocket PCR Thermocycler Dreamed for DIY Biologists - 2009-09-11: Synthetic biology will bring us a slimy, moist future( wired.co.uk) - 2009-09-03: Tinkering with DNA(The Economist) paywall alert - 2009-08-19: DIYbio and Authentic Learning - 2009-08-06: DIY bio groups forming - 2009-08-01: Am I a biohazard?(The Scientist) - 2009-07-25: DIYbio, biohackers, and Open Source Medicine - 2009-07-20: DIYbio considers mushroom identification( mycorant.com) - 2009-06-18: CNC Plotter: A platform for DIY Bio/rapid-prototyping/sculpture-image experiments( invivia.com) - 2009-06-15: Darning Genes: Biology for the Homebody - 2009-06-12: Teen Diagnoses Her Own Disease In Science Class( slashdot.org); cnn - 2009-06-02: Extending the free software paradigm to DIY Biology( freesoftwaremagazine.com) - 2009-06-01: The death of DIY Bio? Or the birth of a new cuisine....(Gourmet Magazine) - 2009-05-18: In attics and closets, "biohackers" prove the spirit of Thomas Edison endures - 2009-05-15: Garage Ribofunk: The Rise of Homebrew Genetic Engineering - 2009-05-14: Biohacking: harmless hobby or global threat? - 2009-05-12: In Attics and Closets, 'Biohackers' Discover Their Inner Frankenstein - 2009-04-29: Who is diybio.org?(Singularity Hub) - 2009-04-28: Do-it-yourself biohacking(Singularity Hub) - 2009-04-14: What's in my closet? A biology lab(JSCMS) - 2009-04-02: DIYbio San Francisco - Glow in the Dark 1( diybio.org) - 2009-03-18: The Geneticist in the Garage(The Guardian) - 2009-03-16: Genomeweb.com article(?) - 2009-03-16: DIY bio, programming culture, and the cultural divide - 2009-02-16: Homemade Molecular Biology Labs aim to create Synthetic Life (labtimes.org) - 2009-01-20: Biohacking: The Open Wetware Future - 2009-01-19: DIY DNA: One Father's Attempt to Hack His Daughter's Genetic Code(Wired) - 2009-01-07: Rise of the garage genome hackers(New Scientist) - 2009-01-06: DIY bioengineering - recap of the recent MIT Soapbox session on DIYbio( ginkgobioworks.com) - 2009-01-04: DIY biology projects - What's your motivation?( scienceblogs.com) - 2009-01-01: DIYbio for biohackers( makezine.com) - 2008-12-30: Students, Scientists Build Biological Machines (transcript)(Lehrer on PBS) ( video ) - 2008-12-29: DIY bio will not end the world - 2008-12-25: Amateurs are trying genetic engineering at home( Slashdot ) - 2008-12-18: P?blico: Biohackers: reventar y reinventar la biolog?a desde los garajes - 2008-12-11: The Biohacking Hobbyist(Seed Magazine) - 2008-09-15: Household biohacking coming to a neighborhood near you!( blog.openwetware.org) - 2008-09-15: Hackers aim to make biology household practice - 2008-08-22: Fish Tale Has DNA Hook: Students Find Bad Labels(NY Times) - 2008-06-13: Synthetic biology, ethics and the hacker culture( 2020science.org) - 2008-06-06: A Homebrew Club for Biogeeks( io9.com) - 2008-05-19: DIY Synthetic Biology - 2008-03-05: The conditions of a mass biotech DIY movement - 2007-11-06: Homebrew Molecular Biology Club - 2007-11-05: Patient's vision: Treating cancer without chemo - 2007-11-04: An Intel Approach to Meds - 2007-07-19: Our Biotech Future by Freeman Dyson (NY Books) - 2007-06-14: Terrorizing the artists in the USA - 2007-01-24: What is BioDIY? - 2006-08-18: Make Magazine: Backyard Biology (Make Magazine) - 2006-04-23: Biotech DIYers, do not hesitate - 2005-05-01: Splice it yourself(Wired) - 2005-04-28: The Future of Open Source Biotechnology( fightaging.org) - 2004-06-02: Offbeat Materials at Professor's Home Set Off Bioterror Alarm (Washington Post) - 2002-11-21: The Future and its Friends(In The Pipeline) - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 17:38:14 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:38:14 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Updates to "Has DIYbio been in the news?" on the FAQ In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/10/15 Bryan Bishop wrote: > Hey all, > > I've been updating the list of DIYbio-related articles on openwetware: > tiny link: http://bit.ly/diybionews > full: http://openwetware.org/wiki/DIYbio/FAQ#Has_DIYbio_been_in_the_news.3F > > Last time I sent this out was in March, and since then there's been ~80 new > articles: > http://groups.google.com/group/diybio/browse_thread/thread/c5d38ccde613e207 > > Here's the updated list. > > Re: Do you glow in the dark yet? Or, only when you get really, really excited? :) BillK From pharos at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 17:56:51 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:56:51 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Cheaper alternative to solar roof panels? Message-ID: Glass roof tiles let a little sunshine in to cut heating bills October 15, 2010 Quote: Swedish company, Soltech Energy, recently received the gold medal for this year?s hottest new material at the Nordbygg 2010 trade fair in Stockholm, Sweden. The award was fitting because it was for the company?s home heating system that features roof tiles made out of glass. The tiles, which are made from ordinary glass, weigh about the same as the clay roof tiles they replace but allow the sun to heat air that is then used to heat the house and cut energy bills. The most common way to connect the system to a house?s existing heating system would be to a water based heating system via an accumulation tank but the system is also designed to be integrated with both air and water based systems, such as a ground source heat pump, air heat pump, pellet boiler or electric boiler ? the only requirement is some form of central heating system. This setup allows the system to heat the house during winter and transfer the heat absorbed in summer to a ground heating system through a heat convector and a fluid based system to help achieve a cooling effect. Depending on factors such as climate, roof angle and house direction, the system should generate around 350 kWh heat per square meter (3 square ft). If your roof isn?t suited to tiles, Soltech Energy also offers glass wall panels that can be tailored to individual houses and benefit from the lower angle of the incoming rays of sunlight during the winter. -------------------- Also see: Their web site says the glass roof tiles cost slightly more than ordinary roof tiles, but last longer. BillK From pharos at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 18:31:13 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 19:31:13 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Cheaper alternative to solar roof panels? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:56 PM, BillK wrote: > > Depending on factors such as climate, roof angle and house direction, > the system should generate around 350 kWh heat per square meter (3 > square ft). > > They've corrected an error in the article: Depending on factors such as climate, roof angle and house direction, the system should generate around 350 kWh heat per square meter (10.76 square ft). BillK From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 19:35:51 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 12:35:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Column- "Why the Singularity isn't going to happen" Message-ID: Annalee Newitz, if I remember correctly, has already written some very nasty things about transhumanists... http://io9.com/5661534/why-the-singularity-isnt-going-to-happen?skyline=true&s=i John From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 21:26:44 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 18:26:44 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Column- "Why the Singularity isn't going to happen" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John wrote: On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:35 PM, John Grigg wrote: > Annalee Newitz, if I remember correctly, has already written some very > nasty things about transhumanists... > > > http://io9.com/5661534/why-the-singularity-isnt-going-to-happen?skyline=true&s=i I'm uncertain what she means by a 'singularity-level technology.' I tried to figure it out within the context of the article and simply couldn't. Does she mean that penicillin is actually a self-modifying intelligence of a magnitude of higher order than human beings that happened to arise when Jonas Salk left some bad cheese near the spot where he spilled a glass of milk? I'm not entirely certain either what the term singularity implies and often get confused by various definitions if it. So I'm usually pretty open to discussion about about it because I want to understand and form my own opinions. But this article seemed more verbiage than comprehensible argument. Darren -- "I don't regret the kingdoms. What sense in borders and nations and patriotism? But I miss the kings." -*Harold and Maude* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 21:45:13 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 14:45:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Column- "Why the Singularity isn't going to happen" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This 2008 blog by Michael Annisimov deplores Annie Newitz for her "Extropian trash" column from that year... I suppose she has somewhat toned herself down... I wonder why? lol http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2008/03/annalee-newitzs-vitriolic-anti-transhumanism/ John On 10/15/10, Darren Greer wrote: > John wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 4:35 PM, John Grigg > wrote: > >> Annalee Newitz, if I remember correctly, has already written some very >> nasty things about transhumanists... >> >> >> http://io9.com/5661534/why-the-singularity-isnt-going-to-happen?skyline=true&s=i > > > I'm uncertain what she means by a 'singularity-level technology.' I tried to > figure it out within the context of the article and simply couldn't. Does > she mean that penicillin is actually a self-modifying intelligence of a > magnitude of higher order than human beings that happened to arise when > Jonas Salk left some bad cheese near the spot where he spilled a glass of > milk? > > I'm not entirely certain either what the term singularity implies and often > get confused by various definitions if it. So I'm usually pretty open to > discussion about about it because I want to understand and form my own > opinions. But this article seemed more verbiage than comprehensible > argument. > > Darren > > -- > "I don't regret the kingdoms. What sense in borders and nations and > patriotism? But I miss the kings." > > -*Harold and Maude* > From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Oct 15 23:13:49 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 19:13:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Cosmic Engineers] Re: Sharing/engineering proposal In-Reply-To: <7795.12124.qm@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <7795.12124.qm@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > There's 11 reasons why being an upload is better than being 2 pounds of fragile jelly, just off the top of my head. ?There are certainly more. Was that "2 pounds of jelly.. off the top of my head" an intentional pun? From bbenzai at yahoo.com Sat Oct 16 00:21:26 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:21:26 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Cosmic Engineers] Re: Sharing/engineering proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <485512.80378.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Keith Henson wrote: ... > Ben, I am not really pouring cold water on your ideas, > which are very > much in tune with those discussed on the early extropian > list.? But I > do urge caution. Of course. I was responding to the implication that remaining biological might be better than uploading, which many people, including me, think is ludicrous. Not that I think there wouldn't be problems to deal with as an upload. I'm banking on there being equivalents to linux, firefox, noscript, adblock and optimisegoogle for uploads, not to mention uploadgreasemonkey and uploadstaythehelloutofmyneocortex, and I'm sure that writing your own exoself software will be a popular, and perhaps essential, occupation. Maybe, in the future, the price of freedom will be the willingness and ability to eternally rewrite your own systems software. Even so, it's better than being made of meat, imo. Ben Zaiboc From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Oct 16 00:57:59 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 17:57:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Cosmic Engineers] Re: Sharing/engineering proposal In-Reply-To: <485512.80378.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <485512.80378.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 5:21 PM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > Keith Henson wrote: > ... > >> Ben, I am not really pouring cold water on your ideas, >> which are very >> much in tune with those discussed on the early extropian >> list.? But I >> do urge caution. > > Of course. > I was responding to the implication that remaining biological might be better than uploading, which many people, including me, think is ludicrous. "Better" is a tricky thing to evaluate in this context. I think it s nearly certain that the uploaded state will be more attractive, if not we modify the unloaded environment till it is. I expect the attractiveness to seduce people out of the real world as in The Clinic Seed story. Once the population starts cocooning up, the process might run to completion or near completion in a couple of years. It might be a very strange world, houses well maintained by AI/robots/bioforms even but no people visible in it. On the other hand, a body kept up by increasingly capable nano machines might be enough to keep people in the physical world. > Not that I think there wouldn't be problems to deal with as an upload. ?I'm banking on there being equivalents to linux, firefox, noscript, adblock and optimisegoogle for uploads, not to mention uploadgreasemonkey and uploadstaythehelloutofmyneocortex, and I'm sure that writing your own exoself software will be a popular, and perhaps essential, occupation. As a guess you are one of the people who recompiles linux just because you can. > Maybe, in the future, the price of freedom will be the willingness and ability to eternally rewrite your own systems software. ?Even so, it's better than being made of meat, imo. If that's what's required the vast majority of people will stay in meat. Running on beta software would be really scary. Keith > Ben Zaiboc From agrimes at speakeasy.net Sat Oct 16 03:16:40 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 23:16:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Cosmic Engineers] Re: Sharing/engineering proposal In-Reply-To: <485512.80378.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <485512.80378.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CB91918.6070805@speakeasy.net> chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: [[ Here's an idea, lets upload into the software that produced ^^^ ]] > Of course. > I was responding to the implication that remaining biological might be better than uploading, > which many people, including me, think is ludicrous. > Not that I think there wouldn't be problems to deal with as an upload. I'm banking on there being > equivalents to linux, firefox, noscript, adblock and optimisegoogle for uploads, not to mention > uploadgreasemonkey and uploadstaythehelloutofmyneocortex, and I'm sure that writing your own exoself > software will be a popular, and perhaps essential, occupation. > Maybe, in the future, the price of freedom will be the willingness and ability to eternally rewrite > your own systems software. Even so, it's better than being made of meat, imo. > Ben Zaiboc Thanks, Ben. I was really beginning to fear that I was about to loose this argument. Thanks to you, I've been handed a decisive victory. =( Yes, that was meant to be a frowny. In the most exact terms possible, New Transhumanism was proposed as an effort to build a community of hard-core transhumanists who believe remaining as an entity which still has clear ties to its biological roots is _NOT_ ludicrous. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From estropico at gmail.com Sat Oct 16 07:20:47 2010 From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:20:47 +0100 Subject: [ExI] ExtroBritannia: The neuropsychology of self control - and its implications for AI and brain simulation Message-ID: The neuropsychology of self control - and its implications for AI and brain simulation Tom Michael provides a summary of converging findings from neuropsychology, neurology and neuroscience, about how the frontal lobes (and to a lesser extent the limbic system) are involved in human decision making and self control, and how these processes can go wrong following brain injury. By studying brain injured individuals we can make much ...more sophisticated psychological models of how the human brain works, which ultimately will be very useful for anyone wishing to reverse engineer the human brain in order to create an artificial intelligence ** About the speaker Tom Michael is is currently carrying out research towards a PhD in neuropsychology. His area of research is about brain injury of the frontal lobes, an area of the brain which is critical to self control, and how the cognitive and behavioural difficulties that are caused by this type of brain injury affect relatives and carers of the brain injured person. Tom's ambition is to work in clinical psychology rather than to remain in academia, although he intends to always maintain an interest in psychological and neuroscience research in order to better understand the human condition. http://sites.google.com/site/tommichaelpsychologist/ ** About the venue: Room 416 is on the fourth floor in the main Birkbeck College building, in Torrington Square (which is a pedestrian-only square). Torrington Square is about 10 minutes walk from either Russell Square or Goodge St tube stations. ** About the meeting: There's no charge to attend, and everyone is welcome. There will be plenty of opportunity to ask questions and to make comments. Discussion will continue after the event, in a nearby pub, for those who are able to stay. Why not join some of the UKH+ regulars for a drink and/or light lunch beforehand, any time after 12.30pm, in The Marlborough Arms, 36 Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HJ. To find us, look out for a table where there's a copy of a book displayed. From estropico at gmail.com Sat Oct 16 07:30:49 2010 From: estropico at gmail.com (estropico) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:30:49 +0100 Subject: [ExI] ExtroBritannia: The neuropsychology of self control - and its implications for AI and brain simulation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Apologies, I've forgetten the where and when: 13 November 2010 ? 14:00 - 16:00 Room 416, 4th floor, Birkbeck College, Torrington Square WC1E 7HX, London Cheers, Fabio On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 8:20 AM, estropico wrote: > The neuropsychology of self control - and its implications for AI and > brain simulation > > Tom Michael provides a summary of converging findings from > neuropsychology, neurology and neuroscience, about how the frontal > lobes (and to a lesser extent the limbic system) are involved in human > decision making and self control, and how these processes can go wrong > following brain injury. > > By studying brain injured individuals we can make much ...more > sophisticated psychological models of how the human brain works, which > ultimately will be very useful for anyone wishing to reverse engineer > the human brain in order to create an artificial intelligence > > ** About the speaker > > Tom Michael is is currently carrying out research towards a PhD in > neuropsychology. His area of research is about brain injury of the > frontal lobes, an area of the brain which is critical to self control, > and how the cognitive and behavioural difficulties that are caused by > this type of brain injury affect relatives and carers of the brain > injured person. > > Tom's ambition is to work in clinical psychology rather than to remain > in academia, although he intends to always maintain an interest in > psychological and neuroscience research in order to better understand > the human condition. > > http://sites.google.com/site/tommichaelpsychologist/ > > ** About the venue: > > Room 416 is on the fourth floor in the main Birkbeck College building, > in Torrington Square (which is a pedestrian-only square). Torrington > Square is about 10 minutes walk from either Russell Square or Goodge > St tube stations. > > ** About the meeting: > > There's no charge to attend, and everyone is welcome. There will be > plenty of opportunity to ask questions and to make comments. > > Discussion will continue after the event, in a nearby pub, for those > who are able to stay. > > Why not join some of the UKH+ regulars for a drink and/or light lunch > beforehand, any time after 12.30pm, in The Marlborough Arms, 36 > Torrington Place, London WC1E 7HJ. To find us, look out for a table > where there's a copy of a book displayed. > From ablainey at aol.com Sat Oct 16 10:47:57 2010 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 06:47:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Column- "Why the Singularity isn't going to happen" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CD3B36BA89C2D9-F20-712E@webmail-d019.sysops.aol.com> Im trying hard to to understand her point, but the more I think about it the more obvious it becomes that she doesn't have one. She has clearly formed a bigoted image of what a singularity believer is. She says 'We are trying to undo the damage that penicillin did'' really? 'we' being humanity. Is this what she thinks the average person is trying to achieve? even as a lose metaphor for undoing the environmental damage caused by technogic advances, I can't think of anything less suitable than penicillin. A -----Original Message----- From: John Grigg To: ExI chat list Sent: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 20:35 Subject: [ExI] Column- "Why the Singularity isn't going to happen" Annalee Newitz, if I remember correctly, has already written some very nasty things about transhumanists... http://io9.com/5661534/why-the-singularity-isnt-going-to-happen?skyline=true&s=i John _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Sat Oct 16 11:03:32 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 13:03:32 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Max Hodak on Brain-machine interfacing: current work and future directions, Teleplace, October 17, 10am PST In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Reminder: Max Hodak on Brain-machine interfacing: current work and future directions, Teleplace, October 17 (tomorrow), 10am PST (1pm EST, 6pm UK, 7pm CET) http://telexlr8.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/max-hodak-on-brain-machine-interfacing-current-work-and-future-directions-teleplace-october-17-10am-pst/ http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/2010/10/asim-experts-series-brain-machine-interfacing-current-work-and-future-directions-by-max-hodak-october-17-2010/ http://www.carboncopies.org/asim-experts-series-brain-machine-interfacing-current-work-and-future-directions-max-hodak On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > Max Hodak on Brain-machine interfacing: current work and future > directions, Teleplace, October 17, 10am PST > http://telexlr8.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/max-hodak-on-brain-machine-interfacing-current-work-and-future-directions-teleplace-october-17-10am-pst/ > http://www.carboncopies.org/asim-experts-series-brain-machine-interfacing-current-work-and-future-directions-max-hodak > > Max Hodak will give an ASIM Expert Series talk in Teleplace on > ?Brain-machine interfacing: current work and future directions? on > Sunday October 17, 2010, at 10am PST (1pm EST, 6pm UK, 7pm CET). Those > who already have Teleplace accounts for teleXLR8 can just ahow up at > the talk. There are a limited number of seats available for others, > please contact Giulio Prisco if you wish to attend. > > Abstract: Fluid, two-way brain-machine interfacing represents one of > the greatest challenges of modern bioengineering. It offers the > potential to restore movement and speech to the locked-in, and > ultimately allow us as humans to expand far beyond the biological > limits we?re encased in now. But, there?s a long road ahead. Today, > noninvasive BMIs are largely useless as practical devices and invasive > BMIs are critically limited, though progress is being made everyday. > Microwire array recording is used all over the world to decode motor > intent out of cortex to drive robotic actuators and software controls. > Electrical intracortical microstimulation is used to ?write? > information to the brain, and optogenetic methods promise to make that > easier and safer. Monkey models can perform tasks from controlling a > walking robot to feeding themselves with a 7-DOF robotic arm. Before > we?ll be able to make the jump to humans, biocompatibility of > electrodes and limited channel counts are significant hurdles that > will need to be crossed. These technologies are still in their > infancy, but they?re a huge opportunity in science for those motivated > to help bring them through to maturity. > > Max Hodak is a scientist-in-training working on brain-machine > interfacing at Duke. He founded Quantios to use computing, machine > learning to improve life. American, French dual citizen. > > Teleplace is one of the best 3D applications for telework, online > meetings, group collaboration, and e-learning in a virtual 3D > environment (v-learning). Those who already have Teleplace accounts > for teleXLR8 can just ahow up at the talk. There are a limited number > of seats available for others, please contact Giulio Prisco if you > wish to attend. > From agrimes at speakeasy.net Sat Oct 16 12:23:11 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 08:23:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Max Hodak on Brain-machine interfacing: current work and future directions, Teleplace, October 17, 10am PST In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CB9992F.5050800@speakeasy.net> chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: > Reminder: Max Hodak on Brain-machine interfacing: current work and > future directions, Teleplace, October 17 (tomorrow), 10am PST (1pm > EST, 6pm UK, 7pm CET) Reminder: Real geeks don't own Windows machines. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From pharos at gmail.com Sat Oct 16 13:03:31 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:03:31 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Column- "Why the Singularity isn't going to happen" In-Reply-To: <8CD3B36BA89C2D9-F20-712E@webmail-d019.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD3B36BA89C2D9-F20-712E@webmail-d019.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: 2010/10/16 ablainey wrote: > She says 'We are trying to undo the damage that penicillin did''? really? > 'we' being humanity. Is this what she thinks the average person is trying to > achieve? even as a lose metaphor for undoing the environmental damage caused > by technogic advances, I can't think of anything less suitable than > penicillin. > > That's journalistic shorthand for the antibiotic resistance problem. More and more diseases are appearing that our antibiotics have no effect on. And there are very few new antibiotics in development. BillK From ablainey at aol.com Sat Oct 16 14:50:02 2010 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 10:50:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Column- "Why the Singularity isn't going to happen" In-Reply-To: References: <8CD3B36BA89C2D9-F20-712E@webmail-d019.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <8CD3B588BE151C6-194C-9B09@webmail-m017.sysops.aol.com> Yes, but I can't see how a single 'magic bullet' solution like penicillin; which led to unforeseen problems caused by evolution can equate to constant and exponential magic bullet after magic bullet; each arriving in a timeline that makes evolution and other much quicker systems (like our thought processes) seem to stand still. If penicillin and antibiotics had advanced at the same rate as computer technology. We would have already eradicated all human pathogens and stockpiled pre designed antibiotics for all resistant variants that might evolve for millennia to come. This is exactly the kind of thing the singularity offers with computer modelling and pre-calculated solutions to problems that have not yet arisen. I see it as common sense and a basic understanding of the singularity, not some psuedo religious 'Angle bunny' tripe as she depicts it. Pah!, some jouro's and their emotive sound bite analogies. The damage they cause though ignorance. A -----Original Message----- From: BillK To: ExI chat list Sent: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:03 Subject: Re: [ExI] Column- "Why the Singularity isn't going to happen" 2010/10/16 ablainey wrote: > She says 'We are trying to undo the damage that penicillin did'' really? > 'we' being humanity. Is this what she thinks the average person is trying to > achieve? even as a lose metaphor for undoing the environmental damage caused > by technogic advances, I can't think of anything less suitable than > penicillin. > > That's journalistic shorthand for the antibiotic resistance problem. More and more diseases are appearing that our antibiotics have no effect on. And there are very few new antibiotics in development. BillK _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rahmans at me.com Sat Oct 16 10:12:44 2010 From: rahmans at me.com (Omar Rahman) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 12:12:44 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Cosmic Engineers] Re: Sharing/engineering proposal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <94EB5742-9B11-48F4-AE7F-F92815809653@me.com> > Message: 2 > Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 06:04:01 -0700 (PDT) > From: Ben Zaiboc > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] Fwd: [Cosmic Engineers] Re: Sharing/engineering > proposal > Message-ID: <7795.12124.qm at web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 > > Sen Yamamoto wrote: > >> (#-Assumes that uploading is somehow superior to natural >> existance- i >> cant argue this either way- simply something that i dont >> often see >> adressed.) > > ??? > > The assumption (conclusion, rather) that uploading is inherently superior to 'natural' existence (biological existence) is one of the cornerstones of transhumanism, at least for many transhumanists (depending on their opinion on whether an upload can 'be' you. For me it's a no-brainer, but that's a separate argument). The main question seems to be as you state is, 'whether an upload can 'be' you.' > > How's this for 'somehow' superior?: All of what you say below seems to add up to bigger, stronger, faster. Generally this has yielded evolutionarily successful results, except for all those organisms like lichen which went successfully down the smaller, weaker, slower path. > > No susceptibility to biological/chemical attack (bacterial/viral infections and poisoning) Susceptibility to computer viral attacks as Keith Henson points out below. And I'm pretty sure HydroChloric Acid would do a number on your processors, wires, etc. This is a change of degree not category. > > Vastly more robust physical structure (potentially, anyway. Nothing stopping you uploading into computational aerogel, though, if you really wanted!) Agreed, but again this is an incremental change. > > No deterioration with time (not strictly true, but the deterioration of the kind of hardware envisioned would be far, far slower) As you say, far slower, so an incremental change. > > Access to your own mental architecture, and the possibility of easily and reversibly altering it, opening up the way to improve your mental capacities, in whatever way is important to you People access their mental architectures all day every day and change them, for the better generally through education, but sometimes they mess themselves up with drugs, cults, or disinformation. Again I would call this an incremental change. > > Copying/Backing up your mind, with all that that implies Recently, over 4 years ago, I began a project to replicate my physical structure and mind. My son Max is doing well and resembles me in many ways, but every day I am reminded that he isn't me. Same for the copies/backups. They will either have to be chained into emulating our biological brains or they will begin to diverge from us at the speed of theirs thoughts and experiences. > > Access to virtual realities that are as real as anything you can experience now, and much more varied. Again, this is incremental. We have VR now, it's not indistinguishable from reality but it is varied. About the indistinguishability, I would argue that the mere fact that it was a simulation would entail other variations in the simulation and these errata would yield to scientific inquiry and reveal the walls of the simulation. > > Vastly reduced energy and material resource requirements This one is completely wrong. Maybe, only maybe, if we stayed in our processors and pondered all day it would be true. But as you point out we will almost certainly like to undertake the kinds of activities you outline below. Multiple bodies multiply resource requirements. While we are talking about efficiency; what if the smallest part we have to replace/simulate/enhance isn't the neuron? Our cyber infrastructure might end up being more massive than our biological infrastructure. What if we need qbits on the order of the number of atoms in the brain to achieve our goals? > > (Probably) Increased speed of cognition and/or the ability to speed up/slow down your mental processes Again we can achieve this sort of thing now through the use of stimulants and/or meditation. Again a matter of degree not category. > > Ability to transmit your mind to remote locations with suitable equipment to recieve and run it (effectively, travel at the speed of light) We can go here and there and grab some gear and do this and that now. Copying and transmitting suffers from the same limitation as copying and backing up. That's not me. > > Reparing the hardware when and if necessary would be vastly easier, so lifespans would be unlimited, or at least indefinite, even if you decided to stay in the same hardware indefinitely (not very likely, I'd think) Repairing arms and legs, etc is getting better all the time. Repairing brains is becoming increasingly feasible too, but this repair problem isn't going to go away. As our 'brains' increase in complexity the difficulty of repairing them will increase. > > Ability to download into a variety of physical bodies (or simply remote-control them), to operate in different 'real-life' environments Remote control is obviously available now, and again the download suffers from the 'that's not me' problem. > > There's 11 reasons why being an upload is better than being 2 pounds of fragile jelly, just off the top of my head. There are certainly more. > > Ben Zaiboc > > > Message: 9 > Date: Fri, 15 Oct 2010 09:40:00 -0700 > From: Keith Henson > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Fwd: [Cosmic Engineers] Re: Sharing/engineering > proposal > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 > > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 6:04 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > > snip >> >> No susceptibility to biological/chemical attack (bacterial/viral infections and poisoning) > > Sigh. The trade off for not getting the flu is that you are now > subject to infection by some horribly evolved version of Stuxnet. > > Perhaps that's the real answer to the Fermi paradox. Technophiles > always figure out uploading and are then eaten by some nasty computer > virus. > >> Vastly more robust physical structure (potentially, anyway. ?Nothing stopping you uploading into computational aerogel, though, if you really wanted!) >> >> No deterioration with time (not strictly true, but the deterioration of the kind of hardware envisioned would be far, far slower) >> >> Access to your own mental architecture, and the possibility of easily and reversibly altering it, opening up the way to improve your mental capacities, in whatever way is important to you > > This is lethal. At least nobody is going to recognize a person who > mucks around with their internal state variables. See Society of Mind > for discussions of these points. > >> Copying/Backing up your mind, with all that that implies > > If offers some possibility you could be restored after mucking with > yer mind or being eaten by a virus. > >> Access to virtual realities that are as real as anything you can experience now, and much more varied. > > You mean like WoW only even more addictive? > > snip > > Ben, I am not really pouring cold water on your ideas, which are very > much in tune with those discussed on the early extropian list. But I > do urge caution. > > Keith > >> Ben Zaiboc > Ben, I also don't want to pour cold water, or hot water for that matter, on any of your ideas but what I'd like to get to is something revolutionary. All of this incremental progress is wonderful but what would be more interesting to me would be something that we can't do now. While the degree does matter, apes can do most (all?) of what we do mentally, but more slowly, what is more important than uploading to me as a biological entity is downloading. Sartre in one of his books, I forget which at the moment, talked about something that I have found philosophically important. Interestingly he used a German term, 'mit sein' which was translated as 'being together'. The ability to literally meet yourself and reintegrate and 'be together' is something that isn't possible now. You might say that empathic feelings indicate the same thing, but it isn't literally true. Downloading is the key to something new. Regards, Omar Rahman -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Sat Oct 16 18:44:43 2010 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 19:44:43 +0100 (BST) Subject: [ExI] Column- "Why the Singularity isn't going to happen" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <860193.38528.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Annalee Newitz is certainly confusing the singularity with a single, giant leap in technology. Penicillin was a big leap in medical technology, but as Kurzweil's explanation of the singularity (for one) goes, the singularity is not one leap, but the period in time where acceleration of technology takes off and more and more advances of technology take place in shorter time periods until the end result is a massive change in a very small time. Her opening sentence - "I don't believe in the Singularity for the same reason I don't believe in Heaven" - is stating that utopian thinking isn't for her. Yes, there are people whose ideas about the Singularity come to a point where they self-identify or are labelled as "Singularitarians" who sound like the future will bring heaven on earth. Having been a Marxist for all of six months in my first year of university and having been a member of various Christian groups, I know there's a lot of utopian thinking out there. Yes, transhumanists almost all believe that technology will bring more benefits than problems (with the exception of a few "the singularity will destroy us" types). She doesn't - that means transhumanism isn't for her, but doesn't automatically make transhumanism wrong or her viewpoint perfect. I would like to make the opposite point to her penultimate paragraph - she asks us to be wary of a narrative that promises things that sound like religion. I say, if the philosophy you subscribe to doesn't include a healthy dose of utopian thinking, you are aiming your sights far too low. Read some mind-expanding books, or alternatively give up and become a political lobbyist. And by the way, she never explained why the singularity isn't going to happen - she only states that singularity-level technology won't come without big consequences. Really? We had no idea! All those comments on this list about how we can't predict what will post-singularity must have been for nothing Tom (about to post more about the Singularity) From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Sat Oct 16 19:59:18 2010 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 20:59:18 +0100 (BST) Subject: [ExI] Axes on a graph In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <151887.63415.qm@web27001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Some time ago, I made a post which I think I called "curves on a graph". I liked discussing how our different interpretations of technological progress meant people came up with different curves of technological progress, some leading to singularity/spike/acceleration/etc. and some to other conclusions. I was inspired at the time by Max More's "surge and singularity scenarios" http://strategicphilosophy.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-fast-will-future-arrive-how-will.html Now thinking about that "why the singularity will never happen" column has led me to ponder a different area - how much time will the steepest part of the graph be spread over? Imagine you are drawing a graph with time on the x axis and technological progress on the y axis. Following Kurzweil or Broderick, you look at accelerating rates of progress and come up with an exponential curve (or not, if you prefer one of Max's alternative scenarios). Now, there's a very steep part which seem to resemble a hyperbolic curve (hence the resemblance to a mathematical singularity). Assuming technology can't progress infinitely and there's a levelling off somewhere between weakly godlike and strongly godlike, how much time does this huge leap occur over? Some have the idea of it being superfast - day 1: "Hey, my AI is self-improving", day 10 "Hey, who ordered the computer-controlled electron microscopes and oligonucleotide assembly gear?", day 30 "Hey, why is the planet turning to computronium?" whereas some scenarios have the process of uploading/AI developing, society changing/collapsing as more intelligences become non-biological and over years a post-singularity world emerging. What I'm interested in is this - are there any credible figures to suggest upper or lower limits to singularity speed? How much time would the singularity spread over, and would any biological humans be able to adapt or would it completely future-shock us all? Tom From protokol2020 at gmail.com Sat Oct 16 20:48:52 2010 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 22:48:52 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Column- "Why the Singularity isn't going to happen" In-Reply-To: <860193.38528.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <860193.38528.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > she asks us to be wary of a narrative that promises things that sound like religion There is no place for a religion in science. But there is no place in science for a fear of a religion, also! -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Oct 16 21:02:49 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 14:02:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Column- "Why the Singularity isn't going to happen" In-Reply-To: <860193.38528.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <860193.38528.qm@web27002.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Tom Nowell wrote: snip > Yes, transhumanists almost all believe that technology will bring more benefits than problems (with the exception of a few "the singularity will destroy us" types). In the same sense that "growing up destroys the child," the singularity is extremely likely to destroy us. Keith From andres at thoughtware.tv Sat Oct 16 21:49:24 2010 From: andres at thoughtware.tv (=?ISO-8859-1?B?QW5kculzIENvbPNu?=) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 17:49:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Thoughtware.TV goes viral on Reddit, watch the video Message-ID: The following video submitted by Jonjon went to the top list at Reddit.com. Here it is for those of you that have yet to see it: *Water Droplet Bouncing on a Superhydrophobic Carbon Nanotube Array :* * http://www.thoughtware.tv/videos/show/5426-Water-Droplet-Bouncing-On-A-Superhydrophobic-Carbon-Nanotube-Array * H+ Andr?s, Thoughtware.TV * * * * -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Sat Oct 16 22:20:36 2010 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 23:20:36 +0100 (BST) Subject: [ExI] Axes on a graph In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <93651.5103.qm@web27005.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Having done my usual saturday night blog catch-up, I now realise that once more Anders Sandberg is ahead of me on this one: http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2010/10/why_early_singularities_are_softer.html from october 7, and from october 9 http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2010/10/what_did_you_learn_about_the_singularity_today.html It seems ECAP 10 has been productive in getting people thinking hard about singularity-related topics, and certainly Amnon Eden's questions about the singularity are well worth bearing in mind. Following links, I'm now interested by http://singularityhypothesis.blogspot.com/ and the fine bibliography provided for people interested in discussing this. So many things to read, so little time... Tom From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Oct 17 02:09:19 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 16 Oct 2010 19:09:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Axes on a graph In-Reply-To: <151887.63415.qm@web27001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> References: <151887.63415.qm@web27001.mail.ukl.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On the short end of the scale, some years ago there was a virus that had a doubling time of 8.5 seconds. More recently. the thousand point melt down in the stock market seems to have been caused by automatic trading programs that were making trades in a few milliseconds. So the possibility exists that the singularity could happen between breakfast and lunch. If humans are in the loop, it will probably go slower. The more interesting question is when. That depends on the doubling time. There the human genome project is instructive. I seem to remember that 5 years into the project they had under 1% sequenced. It more or less finished something like two years under the original estimate. http://www.strategicgenomics.com/Genome/index.htm Last I heard, Ray Kurzweil was expecting it to happen 2045 plus or minus a few years. Keith On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 12:59 PM, Tom Nowell wrote: > Some time ago, I made a post which I think I called "curves on a graph". I liked discussing how our different interpretations of technological progress meant people came up with different curves of technological progress, some leading to singularity/spike/acceleration/etc. and some to other conclusions. I was inspired at the time by Max More's "surge and singularity scenarios" > http://strategicphilosophy.blogspot.com/2009/06/how-fast-will-future-arrive-how-will.html > > Now thinking about that "why the singularity will never happen" column has led me to ponder a different area - how much time will the steepest part of the graph be spread over? Imagine you are drawing a graph with time on the x axis and technological progress on the y axis. Following Kurzweil or Broderick, you look at accelerating rates of progress and come up with an exponential curve (or not, if you prefer one of Max's alternative scenarios). Now, there's a very steep part which seem to resemble a hyperbolic curve (hence the resemblance to a mathematical singularity). Assuming technology can't progress infinitely and there's a levelling off somewhere between weakly godlike and strongly godlike, how much time does this huge leap occur over? > > Some have the idea of it being superfast - day 1: "Hey, my AI is self-improving", day 10 "Hey, who ordered the computer-controlled electron microscopes and oligonucleotide assembly gear?", day 30 "Hey, why is the planet turning to computronium?" whereas some scenarios have the process of uploading/AI developing, society changing/collapsing as more intelligences become non-biological and over years a post-singularity world emerging. > > What I'm interested in is this - are there any credible figures to suggest upper or lower limits to singularity speed? How much time would the singularity spread over, and would any biological humans be able to adapt or would it completely future-shock us all? > > Tom > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Oct 17 12:39:34 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 05:39:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Thief Message-ID: Has anyone read _Quantum Thief_ by Hannu Rajaniemi? Keith From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Oct 17 15:29:41 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 11:29:41 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Benoit Mandelbrot In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <738849A8-FD28-4BF0-8C0C-20301CBB323A@bellsouth.net> I was sorry to hear that Benoit Mandelbrot has died at the age of 85. I've had fun with the Mandelbrot set over the years, the first program I ever wrote generated one. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Oct 17 20:50:06 2010 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 16:50:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] How to pre-empt the singularity was Re: Column- "Why the Singularity isn't going to happen" Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 5:02 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Sat, Oct 16, 2010 at 11:44 AM, Tom Nowell wrote: > > snip > >> Yes, transhumanists almost all believe that technology will bring more benefits than problems (with the exception of a few "the singularity will destroy us" types). > > In the same sense that "growing up destroys the child," the > singularity is extremely likely to destroy us. ### I am very much the "singularity will destroy us" type and for some time I have been thinking about any feasible ways of escaping Skynet's bots. I expect that my current work on mitochondrial therapies may be more or less complete within the next 10 years, and the escape from singularity question merges with "What to do with my life next?". Currently I think that switching to working on brain-machine interface would be the best way for me. With further advances in neural stem cell manipulation we should be able to design cells capable of growing axons and dendrites in the adult central nervous system, and interfacing with both existing neural structures and with implanted communication devices. This type of technology would allow massively parallel monitoring of human neural network traffic at the single synapse level, with multiple readouts from each cortical column, as well as manipulation of traffic with addressing of specific synapses. It would have many orders of magnitude more comm bandwidth than current BMI devices. Algorithms that reconstruct functionally equivalent or quasi-equivalent networks from a sufficient sample of network traffic already exist, at least if you have some idea of the structure of the network's nodes, and for the brain we do. My skills in molecular biology would be somewhat useful in parts of the project, so I could transition into the effort without having to make a total break with my current mindset. Eventually, it should be in this way possible to upload an adult human mind into a non-biological substrate while maintaining legal person continuity - have upload neural implant sprout through your aging brain and take over increasing fractions of processing, until your body is just a puppet your mostly uploaded and vastly expanded mind is using to make legal claims on its own behalf. At some point legal recognition of upload personhood would occur, and my cryonics policy could be allowed to lapse. If the upload can be achieved by more or less brute force reconstruction of my own neural network in an exaflop computer, I might be there even before AI's built from code up are potent enough to destroy me. This is so far the only plausible way I see of avoiding doom at the singularity, by diving very literally head-first into the maw. Does anybody have other specific plans for saving self? Rafal From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Oct 17 21:10:32 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 14:10:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Thief In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I believe Damien Broderick posted about it recently and gave it a big thumbs up... John On 10/17/10, Keith Henson wrote: > Has anyone read _Quantum Thief_ by Hannu Rajaniemi? > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From agrimes at speakeasy.net Sun Oct 17 21:12:33 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 17:12:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] How to pre-empt the singularity was Re: Column- "Why the Singularity isn't going to happen" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CBB66C1.2080105@speakeasy.net> > Currently I think that switching to working on brain-machine interface > would be the best way for me. With further advances in neural stem > cell manipulation we should be able to design cells capable of growing > axons and dendrites in the adult central nervous system, and > interfacing with both existing neural structures and with implanted > communication devices. This type of technology would allow massively > parallel monitoring of human neural network traffic at the single > synapse level, with multiple readouts from each cortical column, as > well as manipulation of traffic with addressing of specific synapses. > It would have many orders of magnitude more comm bandwidth than > current BMI devices. Algorithms that reconstruct functionally > equivalent or quasi-equivalent networks from a sufficient sample of > network traffic already exist, at least if you have some idea of the > structure of the network's nodes, and for the brain we do. My skills > in molecular biology would be somewhat useful in parts of the project, > so I could transition into the effort without having to make a total > break with my current mindset. I had the exact same idea about 5 years ago. I have a mailing list, thresearch at yahoogroups.com > Eventually, it should be in this way possible to upload an adult human > mind into a non-biological substrate while maintaining legal person > continuity - have upload neural implant sprout through your aging > brain and take over increasing fractions of processing, until your > body is just a puppet your mostly uploaded and vastly expanded mind is > using to make legal claims on its own behalf. Yep, that's the way to do it. (some minor details notwithstanding...) -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Oct 17 21:12:23 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 14:12:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Benoit Mandelbrot, maverick mathematician, dies at 85 Message-ID: Benoit Mandelbrot, novel mathematician, dies at 85... http://detnews.com/article/20101016/NATION/10160420/1020/rss09#ixzz12apyvpsM From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Oct 17 23:59:42 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 16:59:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] How to pre-empt the singularity was Re: Column- "Why the Singularity isn't going to happen" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 1:50 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: Snip > Eventually, it should be in this way possible to upload an adult human > mind into a non-biological substrate while maintaining legal person > continuity - have upload neural implant sprout through your aging > brain and take over increasing fractions of processing, until your > body is just a puppet your mostly uploaded and vastly expanded mind is > using to make legal claims on its own behalf. At some point legal > recognition of upload personhood would occur, and my cryonics policy > could be allowed to lapse. If the upload can be achieved by more or > less brute force reconstruction of my own neural network in an exaflop > computer, I might be there even before AI's built from code up are > potent enough to destroy me. Adopting an EP mind set makes this path potentially scary. Humans have evolved psychological mechanisms. I make a case that one of these detects a "bleak future," turns up the gain on xenophobic memes that induce irrational behavior and this leads to wars between groups. (Which under some circumstances are rational from the viewpoints of genes.) Groups of xenophobic meme infested, weakly godlike enhanced humans is a formula for disaster. And who knows? With a lot more smarts perhaps the future is going to look really bleak. If we were designing AIs from scratch, it's not likely that such mechanisms would be included. But enhancing a human, you are starting with these mechanisms. I don't have a solution. Keith > This is so far the only plausible way I see of avoiding doom at the > singularity, by diving very literally head-first into the maw. > > Does anybody have other specific plans for saving self? > > Rafal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From kanzure at gmail.com Mon Oct 18 01:38:56 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 20:38:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [singularity] CFP: Exploring Human Enhancement In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Mike Tintner Date: Sun, Oct 17, 2010 at 8:02 PM Subject: [singularity] CFP: Exploring Human Enhancement To: singularity > EXPLORING HUMAN ENHANCEMENT: A SYMPOSIUM > > at The Center for Values in Medicine, Science, and Technology > The University of Texas at Dallas > > April 8-9, 2011 > Renaissance Hotel, Richardson Texas > > The Center for Values in Medicine, Science, and Technology invites submissions of abstracts of up to 250 words exploring ethical, cultural, humanistic explorations and evaluations of human enhancement, from existing and emerging technologies to speculative technologies. ?We are especially interested in submissions relating to interdisciplinary work and on new developments in the field. With this in mind, we invite submissions from philosophers, scholars in arts, literature, bioethics, cultural studies, and from scientists and technologists who take a humanistic perspective on their studies. ?Each author should only submit one proposal. Proposals for group presentations, panels, and workshops with innovative formats are also welcome. > > Keynote Speakers: > > ? Linda Hogle, Professor of Medical Social Sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison > ? Maxwell J. Mehlman, Arthur E. Petersilge Professor of Law and Professor of Biomedical Ethics, Case Western Reserve University School of Medicine > > Proposals might, for example, relate to the following aspects of human enhancement: > > ? Artificial intelligence and post/transhumanism > ? Cyborgs and human nature > ? Enhancement technology, art, and human experience > ? Science & technology studies and human enhancement > ? Feminist approaches to human enhancement > ? Disability, prosthesis, and enhancement > ? Ethics in medical practices and research related to enhancement > ? The treatment-enhancement / therapy-enhancement distinction > ? Artistic and literary representations of human enhancement > ? Enhancement, capitalism, and consumer culture > ? For or against human perfection > ? Technological determinism and transhumanism > ? Research funding priorities ? enhancement, treatment, prevention > ? Politics of science and technology & human enhancement > ? Human enhancement, discrimination, and human rights > ? Technologies of empowerment vs. technologies of exploitation > ? Limits and regulations on research and development of enhancement technology > ? Parental responsibilities, designer babies, and fetal consent > ? Patenting genetic enhancements > ? Health care equality and human enhancement > ? Human enhancement for military uses > > Submissions should be in the form of a 250 word abstract. > Submission Deadline: November 19, 2010. > > Send submissions to: centerforvaluesutdallas at gmail.com > > Conference website can be found at: > > http://www.utdallas.edu/c4v/human-enhancement-symposium/ > > -- > Matthew J. Brown, Assistant Professor of Philosophy > School of Arts & Humanities // The University of Texas at Dallas > 800 W Campbell Road, JO31 // Richardson, TX 75080 > http://utdallas.edu/~mattbrown // http://utdallas.academia.edu/MatthewBrown > > > > > > ---- > The Litsci-L archive is viewable on the Web at: > http://litsci.org ------------------------------------------- singularity Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/11983/=now RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/11983/8982485-2d0a45f9 Modify Your Subscription: https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8982485&id_secret=8982485-f19f7d1d Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 From spike66 at att.net Mon Oct 18 02:14:32 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 19:14:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Column- "Why the Singularity isn't going to happen" In-Reply-To: <8CD3B36BA89C2D9-F20-712E@webmail-d019.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CD3B36BA89C2D9-F20-712E@webmail-d019.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: ...On Behalf Of ablainey at aol.com ... She says 'We are trying to undo the damage that penicillin did'' really? 'we' being humanity...A Ja, penicillin did serious damage, assuming one looks at life from the point of view of a pathogen. spike From spike66 at att.net Mon Oct 18 02:47:22 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 17 Oct 2010 19:47:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Benoit Mandelbrot In-Reply-To: <738849A8-FD28-4BF0-8C0C-20301CBB323A@bellsouth.net> References: <738849A8-FD28-4BF0-8C0C-20301CBB323A@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <3AA95ADC158F43CFBC4D27C05CED812D@spike> ... I've had fun with the Mandelbrot set over the years, the first program I ever wrote generated one... John K Clark Mandelbrot's work blew my mind and changed my life. My first computer (a Vic20) was put to work generating Mandelbrot sets in 1983. spike _____ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Mon Oct 18 03:08:59 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 00:08:59 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Benoit Mandelbrot In-Reply-To: <3AA95ADC158F43CFBC4D27C05CED812D@spike> References: <738849A8-FD28-4BF0-8C0C-20301CBB323A@bellsouth.net> <3AA95ADC158F43CFBC4D27C05CED812D@spike> Message-ID: A Mandebrot set zoom accompanied by musician Jonthanan Coultan's song "Mandelbrot Set." Seems like a fitting tribute. I was introduced to Mandelbrot sets and fractals by an ex, who was using them in his computer music compositions and art installations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gEw8xpb1aRA Darren 2010/10/17 spike > > ... I've had fun with the Mandelbrot set over the years, the first program > I ever wrote generated one... John K Clark > > > Mandelbrot's work blew my mind and changed my life. My first computer (a > Vic20) was put to work generating Mandelbrot sets in 1983. > > spike > > ------------------------------ > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- "I don't regret the kingdoms. What sense in borders and nations and patriotism? But I miss the kings." -*Harold and Maude* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Mon Oct 18 11:16:49 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:16:49 +0200 Subject: [ExI] VIDEO: Max Hodak on Brain-machine interfacing, Teleplace, October 17 Message-ID: VIDEO - Max Hodak on Brain-machine interfacing: current work and future directions, Teleplace, October 17 http://telexlr8.wordpress.com/2010/10/18/max-hodak-on-brain-machine-interfacing-current-work-and-future-directions-teleplace-october-17/ On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 8:18 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > Max Hodak on Brain-machine interfacing: current work and future > directions, Teleplace, October 17, 10am PST > http://telexlr8.wordpress.com/2010/10/11/max-hodak-on-brain-machine-interfacing-current-work-and-future-directions-teleplace-october-17-10am-pst/ > http://www.carboncopies.org/asim-experts-series-brain-machine-interfacing-current-work-and-future-directions-max-hodak > > Max Hodak will give an ASIM Expert Series talk in Teleplace on > ?Brain-machine interfacing: current work and future directions? on > Sunday October 17, 2010, at 10am PST (1pm EST, 6pm UK, 7pm CET). Those > who already have Teleplace accounts for teleXLR8 can just ahow up at > the talk. There are a limited number of seats available for others, > please contact Giulio Prisco if you wish to attend. > > Abstract: Fluid, two-way brain-machine interfacing represents one of > the greatest challenges of modern bioengineering. It offers the > potential to restore movement and speech to the locked-in, and > ultimately allow us as humans to expand far beyond the biological > limits we?re encased in now. But, there?s a long road ahead. Today, > noninvasive BMIs are largely useless as practical devices and invasive > BMIs are critically limited, though progress is being made everyday. > Microwire array recording is used all over the world to decode motor > intent out of cortex to drive robotic actuators and software controls. > Electrical intracortical microstimulation is used to ?write? > information to the brain, and optogenetic methods promise to make that > easier and safer. Monkey models can perform tasks from controlling a > walking robot to feeding themselves with a 7-DOF robotic arm. Before > we?ll be able to make the jump to humans, biocompatibility of > electrodes and limited channel counts are significant hurdles that > will need to be crossed. These technologies are still in their > infancy, but they?re a huge opportunity in science for those motivated > to help bring them through to maturity. > > Max Hodak is a scientist-in-training working on brain-machine > interfacing at Duke. He founded Quantios to use computing, machine > learning to improve life. American, French dual citizen. > > Teleplace is one of the best 3D applications for telework, online > meetings, group collaboration, and e-learning in a virtual 3D > environment (v-learning). Those who already have Teleplace accounts > for teleXLR8 can just ahow up at the talk. There are a limited number > of seats available for others, please contact Giulio Prisco if you > wish to attend. > From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 17:53:08 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 10:53:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] ET over Moscow? Message-ID: <867143.18515.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFxS1-P8aXc Well, this one is making the rounds and I was wondering why no reactions here... Regards, Dan From bbenzai at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 18:24:23 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:24:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Cosmic Engineers] Re: Sharing/engineering proposal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <660171.49677.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 9:04 AM, Ben Zaiboc > wrote: > > There's 11 reasons why being an upload is better than > being 2 pounds of fragile jelly, just off the top of my > head. ?There are certainly more. > > Was that "2 pounds of jelly.. off the top of my head" an > intentional pun? I was wondering if anyone would think that. I admit nothing. Keith Henson wrote: > "Better" is a tricky thing to evaluate in this > context.? I think it s > nearly certain that the uploaded state will be more > attractive, if not > we modify the unloaded environment till it is.? I > expect the > attractiveness to seduce people out of the real world as in > The Clinic > Seed story.? Once the population starts cocooning up, > the process > might run to completion or near completion in a couple of > years. > > It might be a very strange world, houses well maintained > by > AI/robots/bioforms even but no people visible in it. Just because people's consciousnesses are housed in safer containers doesn't mean they'd automatically abandon the physical world. Yes, VR will have its appeal, I'd be the first to admit, and I'd love to have holidays in fantasmagorical worlds, but I'd still want to work in the 'real' world, drive a set of synthetic bodies, be able to explore and work in environments that my original meat body would perish in. I think it will be a strange world, but it won't seem uninhabited. > > On the other hand, a body kept up by increasingly capable > nano > machines might be enough to keep people in the physical > world. Same thing, really. What's the difference between a 'classical' upload, and a biological body that's been gradually transformed into something post-biological via increasingly capable nanomachines? Your brain will still be made of synthetic materials, and will be capable of the same VR experiences, etc. I view that as just another route to uploading (probably a preferable route, if you're willing to accept the risks involved in it taking longer than the destructive scanning method). > > As a guess you are one of the people who recompiles linux > just because you can. Nope, but I do use as much open-source and free (as in speech) software as I can. You certainly won't catch me using anything from Apple, and M$ as little as possible. > > > Maybe, in the future, the price of freedom will be the > willingness and ability to eternally rewrite your own > systems software. ?Even so, it's better than being made of > meat, imo. > > If that's what's required the vast majority of people will > stay in meat. > > Running on beta software would be really scary. For many, yes. For others, the risk of thralldom to some company or other (or even some group of open source programmers), or the vulnerabililty to malware, will be even scarier. The point is, people should have choices. Just as in biology, variation will be important. Ben Zaiboc From rpwl at lightlink.com Mon Oct 18 18:35:30 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:35:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] ET over Moscow? In-Reply-To: <867143.18515.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <867143.18515.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CBC9372.6050504@lightlink.com> Dan wrote: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFxS1-P8aXc > > Well, this one is making the rounds and I was wondering why no reactions here... Sigh, chinese lanterns again! All over Europe, the last few years. Always the UFO reports. :-) Just somebody had a birthday party or a wedding, and they decided to let off a bunch of chinese lanterns. Those Russians, bless their cotton socks, just love their UFOs. Richard Loosemore From atymes at gmail.com Mon Oct 18 18:47:22 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 11:47:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ET over Moscow? In-Reply-To: <867143.18515.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <867143.18515.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Because there's nothing to react to? All the video shows is a bunch of red light sources among the clouds. Unidentified and flying, they are. Objects, maybe - all we see are light sources. It is known that there are a number of entirely mundane potential sources of lights in the sky. Helicopters, balloons, natural phenomena...and given the number of times people have claimed "OMG ALIENS" only to be decisively proven wrong in such a manner, the odds seem rather high that this is more of the same. Now, if you want something from Russia most people don't see very often, take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auuVNptOO1U&feature=aso On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Dan wrote: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFxS1-P8aXc > > Well, this one is making the rounds and I was wondering why no reactions > here... > > Regards, > > Dan > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Oct 18 20:04:34 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 13:04:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ET over Moscow? In-Reply-To: <867143.18515.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <867143.18515.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFxS1-P8aXc > > Well, this one is making the rounds and I was wondering why > no reactions here... Dan Dan did you never make a hot air balloon with a garment bag and a parafin burner? I thought all kids did that at some time or other. So you get several of your comrades to do the same thing, watch the local commies get all worried there is some alien invasion or vast capitalistic plot underway. spike From spike66 at att.net Mon Oct 18 21:10:45 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:10:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ET over Moscow? In-Reply-To: References: <867143.18515.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: ________________________________ On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes ... Now, if you want something from Russia most people don't see very often, take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auuVNptOO1U&feature=aso {8^D Haaaaahahahahaaa! Boris got with the program when he saw them coming, ja? {8^D Actually those were not wolves. Those were hungry capitalists in wolves clothing. {8^D spike From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 21:15:36 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:15:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] ET over Moscow? In-Reply-To: References: <867143.18515.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <824362.21794.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Not to worry. This was my reaction too. I'm not sending this because I think it's solid evidence of ET visiting Earth (or just passing by), but more to see if anyone else had a different reaction -- well, amongst those whose opinions I respect. :) Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ---- From: spike To: ExI chat list Sent: Mon, October 18, 2010 4:04:34 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] ET over Moscow? > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFxS1-P8aXc > > Well, this one is making the rounds and I was wondering why > no reactions here... Dan Dan did you never make a hot air balloon with a garment bag and a parafin burner?? I thought all kids did that at some time or other.? So you get several of your comrades to do the same thing, watch the local commies get all worried there is some alien invasion or vast capitalistic plot underway. spike From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon Oct 18 21:21:18 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 14:21:18 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] ET over Moscow? In-Reply-To: References: <867143.18515.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <336630.81356.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> A friend actually sent this to me. He and I discuss this issue often -- with me always asking for unambiguous evidence of ET. He has yet to present me with a case that seems to weigh heavily in favor of an ET explanation -- and many cases are of "light sources" in the sky variety. And I don't recall an example he's sent my way that was from more than one vantage point -- and, so, presuming these aren't hoaxes, no means to roughly guess distance and speed. This surprises me too because of the distribution these days of digital cameras. Almost anyone who has a mobile phone has a camera built in that can do video. Granted, this isn't going to be high quality imaging, but, if several people from different locations were to photograph or film the same phenomenon at around the same time, we'd be able to judge distance (or altitude) and speed much better. Regards, Dan From: Adrian Tymes To: ExI chat list Sent: Mon, October 18, 2010 2:47:22 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] ET over Moscow? Because there's nothing to react to? All the video shows is a bunch of red light sources among the clouds. Unidentified and flying, they are.? Objects, maybe - all we see are light sources. It is known that there are a number of entirely mundane potential sources of lights in the sky.? Helicopters, balloons, natural phenomena...and given the number of times people have claimed "OMG ALIENS" only to be decisively proven wrong in such a manner, the odds seem rather high that this is more of the same. Now, if you want something from Russia most people don't see very often, take a look at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=auuVNptOO1U&feature=aso On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 10:53 AM, Dan wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFxS1-P8aXc > >Well, this one is making the rounds and I was wondering why no reactions here... > >Regards, > >Dan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Oct 18 21:17:28 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 22:17:28 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Cosmic Engineers] Re: Sharing/engineering proposal In-Reply-To: <660171.49677.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <660171.49677.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 7:24 PM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > > Just because people's consciousnesses are housed in safer containers doesn't > mean they'd automatically abandon the physical world. ?Yes, VR will have its > appeal, I'd be the first to admit, and I'd love to have holidays in fantasmagorical > worlds, but I'd still want to work in the 'real' world, drive a set of synthetic bodies, > be able to explore and work in environments that my original meat body would > perish in. > But the real world would be so S....L......O.......W compared with VR life. Why spend a year trying to build something in the real world when a comparable event could be done in a few seconds (real time) in VR and similar satisfaction obtained? Remember VR life will be on a recursive improvement route micro second by micro second. You won't go back to real life. It would be like visiting statues. BillK From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Mon Oct 18 23:36:49 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 16:36:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Emerging technologies and the ACLU Message-ID: The ACLU is already looking at the potential legal battles of the future... "Stanley, a former analyst with a technology -- research company, compiled a report titled Technology, Liberties, and The Future, which was never released to the public. In it, he draws on insights from scientists, legal scholars, and political theorists, gaming out the ACLU's possible response to everything from cloning to artificial intelligence to genetic splicing to nanotechnology. He raises more questions than he answers. What would happen, Stanley wonders, if people could develop genetic "recipes" for cloning? "How do free speech rights bear up against privacy interests when, for example, such recipes are traded over the Internet?" he asks. Once humans gain the ability to modify their brains with technology, or modify computers with genetic material, what qualifies as a human "when it comes to granting all the rights that come with personhood?" http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=humanoid_rights John From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Oct 19 00:15:22 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 17:15:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] DARPA funded 100 year starship program Message-ID: Well, at least DARPA seems capable of longterm thinking... http://www.kurzweilai.net/nasa-ames-worden-reveals-darpa-funded-hundred-year-starship-program?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter John From ismirth at gmail.com Tue Oct 19 03:24:38 2010 From: ismirth at gmail.com (Isabelle Hakala) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 23:24:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] ET over Moscow? In-Reply-To: <867143.18515.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <867143.18515.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: These actually look very similar to what was seen in manhattan, at what might have been the same time/day since this one was uploaded oct 13, and I think that is the same day as over Manhattan... maybe. I don't have full internet access to be able to check. But if it looks similar, and was simultanious... that would be interesting. On Oct 18, 2010 2:22 PM, "Dan" wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFxS1-P8aXc Well, this one is making the rounds and I was wondering why no reactions here... Regards, Dan _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Oct 19 06:52:36 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Mon, 18 Oct 2010 23:52:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] ET over Moscow? In-Reply-To: References: <867143.18515.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I saw a cable special where they said Russian UFO groups in the sixties actually compromised their nation's military security, by keeping copious notes on "flying saucers" that were actually top secret Russian military rocket launches! lol John On 10/18/10, Isabelle Hakala wrote: > These actually look very similar to what was seen in manhattan, at what > might have been the same time/day since this one was uploaded oct 13, and I > think that is the same day as over Manhattan... maybe. I don't have full > internet access to be able to check. But if it looks similar, and was > simultanious... that would be interesting. > > On Oct 18, 2010 2:22 PM, "Dan" wrote: > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oFxS1-P8aXc > > Well, this one is making the rounds and I was wondering why no reactions > here... > > Regards, > > Dan > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From giulio at gmail.com Tue Oct 19 08:24:28 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:24:28 +0200 Subject: [ExI] My presentation at TransVision 2010: Online conferences 2.0 Message-ID: My presentation at TransVision 2010: Online conferences 2.0 http://giulioprisco.blogspot.com/2010/10/my-presentation-at-transvision-2010.html One problem with conferences is that participating costs money and time. Today many conferences offer live video streams of all talks and discussion, which is very important for those who cannot attend physically. Some recent conferences like the ASIM 2010 Conference in San Francisco (satellite to the Singularity Summit 2010) have offered fully interactive remote participation with multi-user video, audio, text and document sharing (?mixed-reality?). Mixed-reality via modern telepresence technology permits opening conferences to remote participants by merging on-site and remote participants in one virtual group. The 2-way video and audio link enables each participant, on-site or remote, to be seen and heard by all other participants, on-site or remote. Remote speakers and attendees are able to actively participate, follow the talks via interactive video streaming, ask questions to the speakers, contribute to the discussion, and give talks themselves. Of course, modern telepresence technology permits also online-only ?conferences 2.0?, and I think this is an important trend. Going back to ?one problem with conferences is that participating costs money and time?, it is evident that online conferences 2.0 permit saving a lot of money and time, thus enabling more people to participate in cultural acceleration. I will present our teleXLR8 project based on Teleplace, recently covered by Hypergrid Business, one of the best online magazines focused on professional applications of virtual reality, ?as an online open TED, using modern telepresence technology for ideas worth spreading, and as a next generation, fully interactive TV network with a participative audience.? See also ?teleXLR8 Project News ? a telepresence community for cultural acceleration?, our mini-manifesto Telepresence Education for a Smarter World on the IEET site and the interview MIND and MAN: Getting Mental with Giulio Prisco, by Natasha Vita-More, on H+ Magazine. From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Oct 19 15:56:50 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 10:56:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Body Hacking] implantable LEDs on io9 In-Reply-To: <552EDAF5-95A1-4E46-949D-175BAA92484B@quinnnorton.com> References: <552EDAF5-95A1-4E46-949D-175BAA92484B@quinnnorton.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Quinn Norton Date: Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 10:45 AM Subject: [Body Hacking] implantable LEDs on io9 To: cyborg at lists.noisebridge.net, bodyhacking http://io9.com/5667125/new-ultra+flexible-waterproof-leds-can-be-implanted-under-your-skin?skyline=true&s=i pretty awesome. -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Oct 19 16:00:41 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:00:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology Message-ID: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> "Dr. Bem, a social psychologist at Cornell University, conducted a series of studies that will soon be published in one of the most prestigious psychology journals (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology). Across nine experiments, Bem examined the idea that our brain has the ability to not only reflect on past experiences, but also anticipate future experiences. This ability for the brain to "see into the future" is often referred to as psi phenomena.... Bem's studies are unique in that they represent standard scientific methods and rely on well-established principles in psychology. Essentially, he took effects that are considered valid and reliable in psychology - studying improves memory, priming facilitates response times - and simply reversed their chronological order. For example, we all know that rehearsing a set of words makes them easier to recall in the future, but what if the rehearsal occurs after the recall? In one of the studies, college students were given a list of words and after reading the list, were given a surprise recall test to see how many words they remembered. Next, a computer randomly selected some of the words on the list as practice words and the participants were asked to retype them several times. The results of the study showed that the students were better at recalling the words on the surprise recall test that they were later given, at random, to practice. According to Bem, practicing the words after the test somehow allowed the participants to "reach back in time to facilitate recall." In another study, Bem examined whether the well-known priming effect could also be reversed. In a typical priming study, people are shown a photo and they have to quickly indicate if the photo represents a negative or positive image. If the photo is of a cuddly kitten, you press the "positive" button and if the photo is of maggots on rotting meat, you press the "negative" button. A wealth of research has examined how subliminal priming can speed up your ability to categorize these photos. Subliminal priming occurs when a word is flashed on the computer screen so quickly that your conscious brain doesn't recognize what you saw, but your nonconscious brain does. So you just see a flash, and if I asked you to tell me what you saw, you wouldn't be able to. But deep down, your nonconscious brain saw the word and processed it. In priming studies, we consistently find that people who are primed with a word consistent with the valence of the photo will categorize it quicker. So if I quickly flash the word "happy" before the kitten picture, you will click the "positive" button even quicker, but if I instead flash the word "ugly" before it, you will take longer to respond. This is because priming you with the word "happy" gets your mind ready to see happy things. In Bem's retroactive priming study, he simply reversed the time sequence on this effect by flashing the primed word after the person categorized the photo. So I show you the kitten picture, you pick whether it is positive or negative, and then I randomly choose to prime you with a good or bad word. The results showed that people were quicker at categorizing photos when it was followed by a consistent prime. So not only will you categorize the kitten quicker when it is preceded by a good word, you will also categorize it quicker when it is followed by a good word. It was as if, while participants were categorizing the photo, their brain knew what word was coming next and this facilitated their decision. These are just two examples of the studies that Bem conducted, but his other studies showed similar "retroactive" effects. The results clearly suggest that average "non-psychic" people seem to be able to anticipate future events." I had the privilege of reading this paper some months ago and have been awaiting its publication with considerable interest. An early version, as PT notes, can be found at http://dbem.ws/FeelingFuture.pdf I await John Clark's explanation that this is all BULLSHIT because he's never heard of Professor Bem, or Cornell University, or Journal of Personality and Social Psychology--the kind of water-tight objection dubbed by Richard Dawkins in another context as "the argument from personal incredulity." Damien Broderick From pharos at gmail.com Tue Oct 19 18:21:43 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:21:43 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 5:00 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > I await John Clark's explanation that this is all BULLSHIT because he's > never heard of Professor Bem, or Cornell University, or Journal of > Personality and Social Psychology--the kind of water-tight objection dubbed > by Richard Dawkins in another context as "the argument from personal > incredulity." > > You should have primed John first with some nice happy words. But maybe it's not too late! :) BillK From spike66 at att.net Tue Oct 19 18:13:40 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:13:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the fun they had Message-ID: A few weeks ago I posted a comment about writing a memoir, but I feared that it would be inaccurate, since my memories of past events are happier, funnier, less boring, generally more positive than they actually were at the time. This is OK I suppose or even a good thing, but I want to write it as it really was, not as I remember it. I have a thought experiment for you. Sunday we took my son to the Western Railway Museum near Rio Vista. They have it all in century theme, since their exhibits are restored train cars and trolleys from about 1900 to 1920 vintage. We rode a restored 1911 electric trolley out to where they were having a 1910 themed harvest festival, where the staff dressed in 1910 costume, and had everything set up in a way that would have entertained the kids a century ago, such as face painting, vintage clowns, a petting zoo, pony rides, pumpkin hurling contest, pie, burgers and dogs, etc. The thing my son loved the best was the hay palace, a large structure made of hay bales which could perhaps be best described as a three dimensional maze. The kids loved that. As he played, I remembered a story that I read about 40 years ago, a SF titled "The Fun They Had." As I recall, it was about a couple of school age kids about the age I was then (~10 yrs) daydreaming about how good it was 100 years before, when school consisted of a classroom full of kids. I googled a few minutes ago, and found that story, and learned it was originally written in 1951 by Asimov. I didn't read it, because I wanted to perform the following thought experiment, to test my own 40 yr old memories. Here's the experiment: try to think of a story you read in your elementary school years, then see if you can find it on the web somewhere. If so, try to write out the story as you remember it, then reread for comparison. Short stories are good, because it doesn't require much time, altho I might repeat this experiment with D'Engle's A Wrinkle in Time. So here is what I recall of The Fun They Had. Two kids, about fifth grade or so, discover a book which is about 100 years old, so it was written about 1960, and start to read about how school was taught back then. A grandfatherly sort, historian, tries to explain how it was back in those days, when the kids sat and listened to a single adult teacher, who put the lessons on a chalk board. The 2060 kids were absolutely amazed that the historian could do arithmetic without a computer of any sort, and could actually remember the days when there were classrooms, instead of the lonely way the 2060 kids learned, one on one with a computer. They imagined the classrooms as far better than they actually were. I will report back after I reread The Fun They Had. Do see if you can reproduce this experiment with your own childhood reading material. As I recall classrooms, pretty much all of them, it was like being stuck in a traffic jam going walking speed in a Maserati: not particularly comfortable, knowing you could go so fast and so far if they would just get the hell outta your way, waiting waiting waiting for the others to struggle and learn that which one mastered with ease and delight, on one's own, at home, long before. It wasn't the fun we had, it was the boredom and frustration we endured. Yet were I to write about it now, it would sound like the fun I had. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Oct 19 18:31:49 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 11:31:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the fun they had Message-ID: ________________________________ From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] Subject: the fun they had >...A few weeks ago I posted a comment about writing a memoir, but I feared that it would be inaccurate, since my memories of past events are happier, funnier, less boring, generally more positive than they actually were at the time...I will report back after I reread The Fun They Had...spike Oy vey, I was right. My own mind had added a bunch of material to this story that wasn't in the original. The entire story was very short: in fact the whole thing is not much more than a page, as copied below. Before I read, I remembered this: >...Two kids, about fifth grade or so, discover a book which is about 100 years old, so it was written about 1960, and start to read about how school was taught back then. A grandfatherly sort, historian, tries to explain how it was back in those days, when the kids sat and listened to a single adult teacher, who put the lessons on a chalk board. The 2060 kids were absolutely amazed that the historian could do arithmetic without a computer of any sort, and could actually remember the days when there were classrooms, instead of the lonely way the 2060 kids learned, one on one with a computer. They imagined the classrooms as far better than they actually were... OK as you can see if you read the short story, I missed it by a mile. A grandfather was mentioned, but the two kids had little interaction with adults. There was nothing about arithmetic, nothing about a lot of stuff I thought was in that story. This surprises me at how far off I was, since I recently compared notes with my high school companions at my 30th HS reunion, and found those memories fairly accurate. Now I don't trust my own memories from my misspent childhood. {8-[ spike http://users.aber.ac.uk/dgc/funtheyhad.html The Fun They Had Isaac Asimov Margie even wrote about it that night in her diary. On the page headed May 17, 2157, she wrote, "Today, Tommy found a real book!" It was a very old book. Margie's grandfather once said that when he was a little boy his grandfather told him that there was a time when all stories were printed on paper. They turned the pages, which were yellow and crinkly, and it was awfully funny to read words that stood still instead of moving the way they were supposed to--on a screen, you know. And then, when they turned back to the page before, it had the same words on it that it had had when they read it the first time. "Gee," said Tommy, "what a waste. When you're through with the book, you just throw it away, I guess. Our television screen must have had a million books on it and it's good for plenty more. I wouldn't throw it away." "Same with mine," said Margie. She was eleven and hadn't seen as many telebooks as Tommy had. He was thirteen. She said, "Where did you find it?" "In my house." He pointed without looking, because he was busy reading. "In the attic." "What's it about?" "School." Margie was scornful. "School? What's there to write about school? I hate school." Margie always hated school, but now she hated it more than ever. The mechanical teacher had been giving her test after test in geography and she had been doing worse and worse until her mother had shaken her head sorrowfully and sent for the County Inspector. He was a round little man with a red face and a whole box of tools with dials and wires. He smiled at Margie and gave her an apple, then took the teacher apart. Margie had hoped he wouldn't know how to put it together again, but he knew how all right, and, after an hour or so, there it was again, large and black and ugly, with a big screen on which all the lessons were shown and the questions were asked. That wasn't so bad. The part Margie hated most was the slot where she had to put homework and test papers. She always had to write them out in a punch code they made her learn when she was six years old, and the mechanical teacher calculated the mark in no time. The Inspector had smiled after he was finished and patted Margie's head. He said to her mother, "It's not the little girl's fault, Mrs. Jones. I think the geography sector was geared a little too quick. Those things happen sometimes. I've slowed it up to an average ten-year level. Actually, the over-all pattern of her progress is quite satisfactory." And he parted Margie's head again. Margie was disappointed. She had been hoping they would take the teacher away altogether. They had once taken Tommy's teacher away for nearly a month because the history sector had blanked out completely. So she said to Tommy, "Why would anyone write about school?" Tommy looked at her with very superior eyes. "Because it's not our kind of school, stupid. This is the old kind of school that they had hundreds and hundreds of years ago." He added loftily, pronouncing the word carefully, "Centuries ago." Margie was hurt. "Well, I don't know what kind of school they had all that time ago." She read the book over his shoulder for a while, then said, "Anyway, they had a teacher." "Sure they had a teacher, but it wasn't a regular teacher. It was a man." "A man? How could a man be a teacher?" "Well, he just told the boys and girls things and gave them homework and asked them questions." "A man isn't smart enough." "Sure he is. My father knows as much as my teacher." "He can't. A man can't know as much as a teacher." "He knows almost as much, I betcha." Margie wasn't prepared to dispute that. She said, "1 wouldn't want a strange man in my house to teach me." Tommy screamed with laughter. "You don't know much, Margie. The teachers didn't live in the house. They had a special building and all the kids went there." "And all the kids learned the same thing?" "Sure, if they were the same age." "But my mother says a teacher has to be adjusted to fit the mind of each boy and girl it teaches and that each kid has to be taught differently." "Just the same they didn't do it that way then. If you don't like it, you don't have to read the book." "I didn't say I didn't like it," Margie said quickly. She wanted to read about those funny schools. They weren't even half-finished when Margie's mother called, "Margie! School!" Margie looked up. "Not yet, Mamma." "Now!" said Mrs. Jones. "And it's probably time for Tommy, too." Margie said to Tommy, "Can I read the book some more with you after school?" "Maybe," he said nonchalantly. He walked away whistling, the dusty old book tucked beneath his arm. Margie went into the schoolroom. It was right next to her bedroom, and the mechanical teacher was on and waiting for her. It was always on at the same time every day except Saturday and Sunday, because her mother said little girls learned better if they learned at regular hours. The screen was lit up, and it said: "Today's arithmetic lesson is on the addition of proper fractions. Please insert yesterday's homework in the proper slot." Margie did so with a sigh. She was thinking about the old schools they had when her grandfather's grandfather was a little boy. All the kids from the whole neighborhood came, laughing and shouting in the schoolyard, sitting together in the schoolroom, going home together at the end of the day. They learned the same things, so they could help one another on the homework and talk about it. And the teachers were people... The mechanical teacher was flashing on the screen: "When we add the fractions 1/2 and 1/4..." Margie was thinking about how the kids must have loved it in the old days. She was thinking about the fun they had. From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Oct 19 19:01:12 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:01:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CBDEAF8.1050408@satx.rr.com> On 10/19/2010 1:21 PM, BillK wrote: > You should have primed John first with some nice happy words. > > But maybe it's not too late! :) It is too late because, in writing that, I was primed by his future reaction, yet to be written. From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Oct 19 19:05:30 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 14:05:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] the fun they had In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CBDEBFA.8010400@satx.rr.com> On 10/19/2010 1:31 PM, spike wrote: > OK as you can see if you read the short story, I missed it by a mile. A > grandfather was mentioned, but the two kids had little interaction with > adults. There was nothing about arithmetic, nothing about a lot of stuff I > thought was in that story. Certainly Asimov wrote one story about calculating without machines. Google takes me to: Could that be what you were conflating with the kid story? Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Tue Oct 19 19:31:23 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 12:31:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the fun they had In-Reply-To: <4CBDEBFA.8010400@satx.rr.com> References: <4CBDEBFA.8010400@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <3ED494C63932448EBDAE936E5AD20D7D@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick ... > Subject: Re: [ExI] the fun they had > > On 10/19/2010 1:31 PM, spike wrote: > > > ...There was nothing about arithmetic, nothing > > about a lot of stuff I thought was in that story. > > Certainly Asimov wrote one story about calculating without machines. > Google takes me to: > > published in 1958. In the work, Asimov predicted widespread > use of a handheld programmable calculator... > > > Could that be what you were conflating with the kid story? > > Damien Broderick It was indeed, thank you sir. I read plenty of Asimov and Clarke in those days, as a lot of us here likely did. It is entirely possible that both works were in the same book of short stories. If I could get back my entire reading collection I had at age 10, I would likely understand myself better than I understand me now. Asimov's conjecture came true long before he envisioned in a way. If one collects all those who make change in fast food restaurants, one would likely find that plenty of them cannot do arithmetic at all, even given a pencil, paper and time. The cash register tells them everything they need, down to giving them the option of just entering which bills and coins were given them, and having the cash register tell which bills and coins to return. I worked a short stint as a cash register operator at Burger King. I knew all the dollar complements by memory: if I saw any two digit number, I knew from memory one dollar minus that number, without having to subtract. This was in the late 70s just before the electronic cash register became universal, when the old mechanical tills were chinging their last kachings. I didn't stay long, for it caused resentment among my colleagues that I immediately went up to the counter without having to pay dues flipping burgers in the back. I never did learn to actually make a Burger King whopper. But hey, I could make change for four hours and have the till balance to the penny at the end of the shift. Numbers are my friends. spike From pharos at gmail.com Tue Oct 19 20:13:16 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:13:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] the fun they had In-Reply-To: <3ED494C63932448EBDAE936E5AD20D7D@spike> References: <4CBDEBFA.8010400@satx.rr.com> <3ED494C63932448EBDAE936E5AD20D7D@spike> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:31 PM, spike wrote: > Asimov's conjecture came true long before he envisioned in a way. ?If one > collects all those who make change in fast food restaurants, one would > likely find that plenty of them cannot do arithmetic at all, even given a > pencil, paper and time. ?The cash register tells them everything they need, > down to giving them the option of just entering which bills and coins were > given them, and having the cash register tell which bills and coins to > return. > > I worked a short stint as a cash register operator at Burger King. ?I knew > all the dollar complements by memory: if I saw any two digit number, I knew > from memory one dollar minus that number, without having to subtract. ?This > was in the late 70s just before the electronic cash register became > universal, when the old mechanical tills were chinging their last kachings. > > > I didn't stay long, for it caused resentment among my colleagues that I > immediately went up to the counter without having to pay dues flipping > burgers in the back. ?I never did learn to actually make a Burger King > whopper. ?But hey, I could make change for four hours and have the till > balance to the penny at the end of the shift. ?Numbers are my friends. > > Some stores in the UK don't have the modern tills that calculate the change the way you describe. I have fun sometimes when the total is 2.83 by giving the operator 3.03 (and expecting a single .20 coin in change). Some almost have a mental breakdown as they stare helplessly at the odd sum of money I give them. I sometimes make a profit on the deal if it is more complicated. Recently the total came to 7.52 and I offered a 10 pound note plus a .02p coin (expecting 2.50 in change). After a bit of hesitation, I was delighted to receive 3.50 in change. BillK From agrimes at speakeasy.net Tue Oct 19 20:08:09 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 16:08:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CBDFAA9.1050004@speakeasy.net> Interesting, I have been experiencing something that just might be precognition for more than 15 years now (Or incredibly powerful intuition). My time horizon seems to be about 2 days. I have been hesitant to classify what I experience. It doesn't seem to have any practical benefit... I recently experimented with it using the roulette mini-game in Dragon Quest 8, where each time I would train on the winning number after each bet. My mind is mostly spatial, so I focused on the spatial position of the winning square. At the beginning of the game I would let my mind drift until one square seemed either "brighter" or "darker" than the others. I did not keep careful statistics, so I don't know how much better than chance I was doing. Also, I don't know whether the game is programmed to cheat either for or against the player. Since a maximum win can net you 50,000 tokens, I didn't have to stay at it too long. While I'm not quite psychic enough to put a shingle above my door or even use it for practical things in my daily life, I still find it a fascinating and compelling part of my being. So, uploaders, riddle me this: If it is actually true that I am a precog, will my upload also be a precog? =P -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From spike66 at att.net Tue Oct 19 22:03:15 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 15:03:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the fun they had In-Reply-To: References: <4CBDEBFA.8010400@satx.rr.com><3ED494C63932448EBDAE936E5AD20D7D@spike> Message-ID: <2B0C37BEAD0B4DFDA92DEF4E3B120CC7@spike> > ...On Behalf Of BillK > Subject: Re: [ExI] the fun they had > > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 8:31 PM, spike wrote: > > > ...But hey, I could make change for four hours and > > have the till balance to the penny at the end of the shift. > > Numbers are my friends. > > Some stores in the UK don't have the modern tills that > calculate the change the way you describe. I have fun > sometimes when the total is > 2.83 by giving the operator 3.03 (and expecting a single .20 > coin in change). Some almost have a mental breakdown as they > stare helplessly at the odd sum of money I give them. BillK, there is a trick for dealing with people who do that. Actually rounders are helpful to the till guys if they get numbers, I always appreciated it. But if the the till guy doesn't get numbers, here's a way to deal: the total is 2.83, a British cat trying to trip him for fun gives him 3.03, so he sets aside the three cents, does the dollar compliment for 83 cents, counts out 17 cents, adds the original three pennies perviously set aside and gives the joker seven coins. That'll fix him. {8^D > I sometimes make a profit on the deal if it is more complicated. > Recently the total came to 7.52 and I offered a 10 pound note > plus a .02p coin (expecting 2.50 in change). After a bit of > hesitation, I was delighted to receive 3.50 in change. > > BillK The same trick works here too. Knowing the dollar compliment often goes with knowing the 10 dollar compliment and the twenty. But not the fifty. For some reason, that oddball bill never really did catch on over here. Set aside the 2 pence, make the change without it, hand the joker his 2 pence back. {8^D Or if you want, you can sweep the three pennies, the tupence and a nickel back into the till and hand him a shilling instead. It can be a fun little contest between the cash register guy and the customer. The older customers would sometimes do stuff like this: a joker might have a tab of 3.47 and give me two singles, a two dollar bill and 22 cents, just to see if I would choke. {8^D I didn't. It's too bad they have those computer cash registers today. Now that we are old, we can't play those kinds of gags on the next generation. So how do we pay it forward? spike From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Oct 19 22:32:57 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:32:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] the fun they had In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/10/19 spike : > festival, where the staff dressed in 1910 costume, and had everything set up > in a way that would have entertained the kids a century ago, such as face > painting, vintage clowns, a petting zoo, pony rides, pumpkin hurling > contest, pie, burgers and dogs, etc.? The thing my son loved the best was so how much pumpkin did your son eat before hurling? :) Or was the event more like punkin' chunkin' ? [ http://www.punkinchunkin.com/ ] (btw, I'd love to see someone enter an electromagnetic rail gun into that contest) From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Oct 19 22:44:35 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:44:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] the fun they had In-Reply-To: <2B0C37BEAD0B4DFDA92DEF4E3B120CC7@spike> References: <4CBDEBFA.8010400@satx.rr.com> <3ED494C63932448EBDAE936E5AD20D7D@spike> <2B0C37BEAD0B4DFDA92DEF4E3B120CC7@spike> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:03 PM, spike wrote: > It's too bad they have those computer cash registers today. ?Now that we are > old, we can't play those kinds of gags on the next generation. ?So how do we > pay it forward? Swipe your damn card and get out of my way old man. Actually, I prefer to block the transaction process of the cashier while I place the ugly old paper money back into my wallet before picking my items up from the counter. I had to wait for all their button pushing and barcode scanning, they can accomodate me for the 8 seconds it takes to return a few lousy singles to a billfold. We might even be able to parallelize the task if they didn't insist on holding my change until the recipt finished printing then handing over a pile of receipt, paper money and coins balanced on top - all dumped into your hand with a flourish of "done, move!" and a grab for the next customer's item-to-be-scanned. What makes us old? Having gone through this kind of experience enough times to be annoyed by it enough to rant about it to others. :) Thanks Spike... From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Oct 19 22:25:49 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 18:25:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [Cosmic Engineers] Re: Sharing/engineering proposal In-Reply-To: References: <660171.49677.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 18, 2010 at 5:17 PM, BillK wrote: > But the real world would be so ?S....L......O.......W ?compared with VR life. > > Why spend a year trying to build something in the real world when a > comparable event could be done in a few seconds (real time) in VR and > similar satisfaction obtained? > > Remember VR life will be on a recursive improvement route micro second > by micro second. You won't go back to real life. It would be like > visiting statues. I think this a function of attention and focus. You feel this life is too slow because you are currently concerned only with the changes in your current line of site or perhaps arm's length. If you'd like to be more busy, please come to my house and clean or mow the lawn or do any of the other tasks that I am unable to fit in my rather short 24 hour day(s). If you still have unused brainpower, please find out what company's stocks I should be investing or what humanitarian efforts could provide maximizal returns on minimal effort input. Life's still moving too slow for you? How about providing some childcare for a dozen soccer moms while they enjoy some downtime. :) I expect that the same would be true for the VR lifers too - devote enough resource to any single task and it will be accomplished so quickly that a great deal of time will be spent waiting for the next novel moment. In fact, you may become so bored with instant-everything that you simply turn off your consciousness until some minimally interesting threshold is reached. Reminds me of a curse/blessing: May you live in interesting times. From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Oct 20 02:25:21 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 19:25:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the fun they had In-Reply-To: References: <4CBDEBFA.8010400@satx.rr.com> <3ED494C63932448EBDAE936E5AD20D7D@spike> <2B0C37BEAD0B4DFDA92DEF4E3B120CC7@spike> Message-ID: Mike Dougherty wrote: Actually, I prefer to block the transaction process of the cashier while I place the ugly old paper money back into my wallet before picking my items up from the counter. I had to wait for all their button pushing and barcode scanning, they can accomodate me for the 8 seconds it takes to return a few lousy singles to a billfold. We might even be able to parallelize the task if they didn't insist on holding my change until the recipt finished printing then handing over a pile of receipt, paper money and coins balanced on top - all dumped into your hand with a flourish of "done, move!" and a grab for the next customer's item-to-be-scanned. What makes us old? Having gone through this kind of experience enough times to be annoyed by it enough to rant about it to others. :) >>> Young or old..., it's offensive to be treated this way. But then I have known people who move at GLACIAL speeds when it's time to put their paper bills back into their wallet! lol John On 10/19/10, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Tue, Oct 19, 2010 at 6:03 PM, spike wrote: >> It's too bad they have those computer cash registers today. ?Now that we >> are >> old, we can't play those kinds of gags on the next generation. ?So how do >> we >> pay it forward? > > Swipe your damn card and get out of my way old man. > > Actually, I prefer to block the transaction process of the cashier > while I place the ugly old paper money back into my wallet before > picking my items up from the counter. I had to wait for all their > button pushing and barcode scanning, they can accomodate me for the 8 > seconds it takes to return a few lousy singles to a billfold. We > might even be able to parallelize the task if they didn't insist on > holding my change until the recipt finished printing then handing over > a pile of receipt, paper money and coins balanced on top - all dumped > into your hand with a flourish of "done, move!" and a grab for the > next customer's item-to-be-scanned. > > What makes us old? Having gone through this kind of experience enough > times to be annoyed by it enough to rant about it to others. :) > > Thanks Spike... > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 20 03:39:07 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 20:39:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] zombie attacks extropian! In-Reply-To: <2B0C37BEAD0B4DFDA92DEF4E3B120CC7@spike> References: <4CBDEBFA.8010400@satx.rr.com><3ED494C63932448EBDAE936E5AD20D7D@spike> <2B0C37BEAD0B4DFDA92DEF4E3B120CC7@spike> Message-ID: Oy vey! Do assure me it is my imagination running wild: is this zombie attacking an extropian? The unfortunate victim's case is flying open, revealing what looks to me like the five-fold outward spiralling arrow extropian logo: http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/new-handbook-helps-newly-undead-zo mbies-adjust/19678907?test=latestnews Max, do zombies specifically target extropians now? Who is this John Austin character? How shall we fight back? Shall we enlist the help of Dr. Wade Davis? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Outlook.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 34981 bytes Desc: not available URL: From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Oct 20 04:35:56 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 21:35:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] zombie attacks extropian! In-Reply-To: References: <4CBDEBFA.8010400@satx.rr.com> <3ED494C63932448EBDAE936E5AD20D7D@spike> <2B0C37BEAD0B4DFDA92DEF4E3B120CC7@spike> Message-ID: I would hope an Extropian did not write this book, which will be marketed toward zombies! Do they really have the kind of intelligence or motivation that would lead them to buy anything at all? lol I would not want to be the sales rep assigned with taking this assignment!!! John ; ) P.S. Anyone remember Eliezer's poem about zombies that get healed by nanotech? hee! On 10/19/10, spike wrote: > Oy vey! Do assure me it is my imagination running wild: is this zombie > attacking an extropian? The unfortunate victim's case is flying open, > revealing what looks to me like the five-fold outward spiralling arrow > extropian logo: > > http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/new-handbook-helps-newly-undead-zo > mbies-adjust/19678907?test=latestnews > > Max, do zombies specifically target extropians now? Who is this John Austin > character? How shall we fight back? Shall we enlist the help of Dr. Wade > Davis? > > spike > > > > > From max at maxmore.com Wed Oct 20 04:19:14 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Tue, 19 Oct 2010 23:19:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] zombie attacks extropian! Message-ID: <201010200446.o9K4k5ah009887@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Yes, spike, I'm afraid so. These *philosophical* zombies act on the realization (entirely non-conscious) that they completely lack qualia and consciousness. Their hostility toward extropians is based on our understanding that human qualia and levels of self-awareness are little better than that of zombies. Posthumans will much less zombie-like, as I will argue in Milan this Saturday: http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/2010/10/15/transvision-2010-presentation-by-max-more/ Max >Oy vey! Do assure me it is my imagination running wild: is this >zombie attacking an extropian? The unfortunate victim's case is >flying open, revealing what looks to me like the five-fold outward >spiralling arrow extropian logo: > >http://www.aolnews.com/weird-news/article/new-handbook-helps-newly-undead-zombies-adjust/19678907?test=latestnews > >Max, do zombies specifically target extropians now? Who is this >John Austin character? How shall we fight back? Shall we enlist >the help of Dr. Wade Davis? > >spike From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Oct 20 05:46:37 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 01:46:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> On Oct 19, 2010, at 12:00 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > According to Bem, practicing the words after the test somehow allowed the participants to "reach back in time to facilitate recall." I assume esteemed Professor Bem misspoke and he mente reach forward in time to facilitate recall, reaching back in time to recall something isn't much of a trick, it's called memory. > The results clearly suggest that average "non-psychic" people seem to be able to anticipate future events." So any experimental subject can do it, the experiment is cheap, easy to perform, and the results are clear; but Bem is the first person in human history to accomplish it. If you believe that then there is some swamp land I'd like to sell you, and if you don't want the land I offer you the following bet: If an article confirming Bem's results appears in Science, Nature, or Physical Review Letters before October 20 2011 I will give you one thousand dollars, if it does not you will give me one hundred dollars. I believe my offer is more than fair. > > > I await John Clark's explanation that this is all BULLSHIT because he's never heard of Professor Bem, or Cornell University, or Journal of Personality and Social Psychology I would never say that Damien, I would never say that I've never heard of Professor Bem, or Cornell University, or Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and it's all BULLSHIT because that just would not be true; I have heard of Cornell University. By the way, your message reminded me of one you sent on June 6 2008, that one involved some professor of welding (!) nobody ever heard of who claimed he had proven that cold fusion was true. At the time I said: "So, esteemed professor Homer J Bumblefuck joins the long list of similar nonentities that have reported cold fusion over the last nineteen years, every single one of which has fallen into a well deserved black hole of oblivion." Time has proven me absolutely correct, Mr. Bumblefuck did indeed fall into a black hole of oblivion, but in 2008 you said this: > "This is known as "the argument from local repute in Backwater, Fla." > Japanese scientists and onlookers might have a different assessment, > since Professor Yoshiaki Arata was reportedly awarded the national > Japanese Order of Culture in 2006. "Yoshiaki Arata, Professor > Emeritus, Osaka University is one of five. He is awarded for his > great academic achievements in high temperature engineering and new > welding science. The Order of Culture (Bunka-Kunsho) is the highest > ranked award in Japan. The awarding ceremony was at the Imperial > Palace, Tokyo on 3rd November, Culture Day in Japan." > So he's not a truck driver, he's a bunco-gumshoe welder, haw haw haw. > With a lifetime annuity from the Japanese government." I have no doubt that Bem, just like Yoshiaki Arata has entered the black hole of oblivion. > the kind of water-tight objection dubbed by Richard Dawkins in another context as "the argument from personal incredulity." No, all I'm saying is that I'm not particularly impressed to learn that Professor Bem knows how to type. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 20 06:33:01 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 01:33:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> On 10/20/2010 12:46 AM, John Clark wrote: > all I'm saying is that I'm not particularly impressed to learn that > Professor Bem knows how to type. But if his typing is accepted by Nature or Science or Physical Review Letters, you would have to be extraordinarily gullible to accept such impossible claims just because a handful of nameless referees who also know how to type recommended publication to an equally gullible editor. Damien Broderick From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Oct 20 10:10:12 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 03:10:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Enhanced humans: the new arms (nephilim) race Message-ID: An article excerpt: "This is based on solid military intelligence, which suggests that America?s competitors (and potential enemies) are privately seeking to develop the same this century and use it to dominate the U.S. if they can. This worrisome ?government think tank? scenario is even shared by the Jasons?the celebrated scientists on the Pentagon?s most prestigious scientific advisory panel who now perceive ?Mankind 2.0? as the next arms race. Just as the old Soviet Union and the United States with their respective allies competed for supremacy in nuclear arms following the Second World War through the 1980s (what is now commonly known as ?the nuclear arms race during the cold war?), the Jasons ?are worried about adversaries? ability to exploit advances in Human Performance Modification, and thus create a threat to national security,? wrote military analyst Noah Shachtman in ?Top Pentagon Scientists Fear Brain-Modified Foes.? "This recent special for Wired magazine was based on a leaked military report in which the Jasons admitted concern over ?neuro-pharmaceutical performance enhancement and brain-computer interfaces? technology being developed by other countries ahead of the United States. ?The Jasons are recommending that the American military push ahead with its own performance-enhancement research?and monitor foreign studies?to make sure that the U.S.? enemies don?t suddenly become smarter, faster, or better able to endure the harsh realities of war than American troops,? the article continued. ?The Jasons are particularly concerned about [new technologies] that promote ?brain plasticity??rewiring the mind, essentially, by helping to ?permanently establish new neural pathways, and thus new cognitive capabilities.??[7] Though it might be tempting to disregard the conclusions by the Jasons as a rush to judgment on the emerging threat of techno-sapiens, it would be a serious mistake to do so." http://www.newswithviews.com/Horn/thomas149.htm From bbenzai at yahoo.com Wed Oct 20 14:57:45 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 15:57:45 +0100 (BST) Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <133940.24714.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Damien Broderick wrote: ...stuff.. > These are just two examples of the studies that Bem > conducted, but his > other studies showed similar "retroactive" effects. The > results clearly > suggest that average "non-psychic" people seem to be able > to anticipate > future events." So if I take a memory test, fail it miserably, then practice really really hard to get it right, what does that mean? Ben Zaiboc From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Oct 20 14:56:06 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 07:56:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Enhanced humans: the new arms (nephilim) race In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I call bs. Keith On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:10 AM, John Grigg wrote: > An article excerpt: > "This is based on solid military intelligence, which suggests that > America?s competitors (and potential enemies) are privately seeking to > develop the same this century and use it to dominate the U.S. if they > can. This worrisome ?government think tank? scenario is even shared by > the Jasons?the celebrated scientists on the Pentagon?s most > prestigious scientific advisory panel who now perceive ?Mankind 2.0? > as the next arms race. Just as the old Soviet Union and the United > States with their respective allies competed for supremacy in nuclear > arms following the Second World War through the 1980s (what is now > commonly known as ?the nuclear arms race during the cold war?), the > Jasons ?are worried about adversaries? ability to exploit advances in > Human Performance Modification, and thus create a threat to national > security,? wrote military analyst Noah Shachtman in ?Top Pentagon > Scientists Fear Brain-Modified Foes.? > > > "This recent special for Wired magazine was based on a leaked military > report in which the Jasons admitted concern over ?neuro-pharmaceutical > performance enhancement and brain-computer interfaces? technology > being developed by other countries ahead of the United States. ?The > Jasons are recommending that the American military push ahead with its > own performance-enhancement research?and monitor foreign studies?to > make sure that the U.S.? enemies don?t suddenly become smarter, > faster, or better able to endure the harsh realities of war than > American troops,? the article continued. ?The Jasons are particularly > concerned about [new technologies] that promote ?brain > plasticity??rewiring the mind, essentially, by helping to ?permanently > establish new neural pathways, and thus new cognitive > capabilities.??[7] Though it might be tempting to disregard the > conclusions by the Jasons as a rush to judgment on the emerging threat > of techno-sapiens, it would be a serious mistake to do so." > > > http://www.newswithviews.com/Horn/thomas149.htm > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From atymes at gmail.com Wed Oct 20 15:54:12 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 08:54:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Enhanced humans: the new arms (nephilim) race In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > I call bs. > > Seconded. The article is a typical ravening fear piece. It even asserts at one point that transforming into a posthuman automatically means loss of dignity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rpwl at lightlink.com Wed Oct 20 15:56:53 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:56:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Enhanced humans: the new arms (nephilim) race In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CBF1145.8000709@lightlink.com> John Grigg wrote: > An article excerpt: > [snip] ?The Jasons are particularly > concerned about [new technologies] that promote ?brain > plasticity??rewiring the mind, essentially, by helping to ?permanently > establish new neural pathways, and thus new cognitive > capabilities.?? That is called "learning" and "thinking" and, no, you really don't want your populace doing that. Richard Loosemore From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Oct 20 16:30:08 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:30:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> On Oct 20, 2010, at 2:33 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > But if his typing is accepted by Nature or Science or Physical Review Letters, you would have to be extraordinarily gullible to accept such impossible claims just because a handful of nameless referees who also know how to type recommended publication to an equally gullible editor. As I can not personally repeat all experimental results for verification it all comes down to a matter of trust. I prefer to trust a journal that has an illustrious history, such as publishing Watson and Crick's DNA paper and many more superb articles, rather than a journal I've never heard of claiming ASTOUNDING results, especially one dedicated to a squishy soft "science" like social psychology. By the way, I don't understand why you didn't take me up on my bet, it's a easy way for you to make a thousand dollars. If you think my list of 3 journals is too short let me know, I could easily add more journals to the list that I respect. And I will give you another way to win the bet, if Warren Buffett invests in a company started by Bem to cash in on this revolutionary development and potential gold mine before October 20 2011 then you get a thousand dollars, you only have to pay me a hundred dollars if there is no journal paper or start up company investment by that date. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 20 16:48:05 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:48:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal In-Reply-To: <133940.24714.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <133940.24714.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CBF1D45.1050708@satx.rr.com> On 10/20/2010 9:57 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > So if I take a memory test, fail it miserably, then > practice really really hard to get it right, what does > that mean? That you're really really stupid? Or have a really really bad memory? Since you're obviously not stupid, I assume you won't be trying this any time soon or late. Damien Broderick From ismirth at gmail.com Wed Oct 20 18:08:59 2010 From: ismirth at gmail.com (Isabelle Hakala) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:08:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: So... if I chose numbers for a lottery ticket... and then after the numbers are drawn I memorized the numbers, then that should mean that I would have written down the correct ones, and thus have WON the lottery the night before? I guess that means that if I didn't win, I would not need to memorize them:) But what if AFTER winning I decided not to bother memorizing them? :P "I'm just saying'..." The funny thing is I totally believe in psi... I simply have doubts that someone has figured out how to prove it exists, without cheating somehow (which negates the proof). -Isabelle ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Isabelle Hakala "Any person who says 'it can't be done' shouldn't be interrupting the people getting it done." "Do every single thing in life with love in your heart." 2010/10/20 John Clark > On Oct 20, 2010, at 2:33 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > But if his typing is accepted by Nature or Science or Physical Review > Letters, you would have to be extraordinarily gullible to accept such > impossible claims just because a handful of nameless referees who also know > how to type recommended publication to an equally gullible editor. > > > As I can not personally repeat all experimental results for verification it > all comes down to a matter of trust. I prefer to trust a journal that has an > illustrious history, such as publishing Watson and Crick's DNA paper and > many more superb articles, rather than a journal I've never heard of > claiming ASTOUNDING results, especially one dedicated to a squishy soft > "science" like social psychology. > > By the way, I don't understand why you didn't take me up on my bet, it's a > easy way for you to make a thousand dollars. If you think my list of 3 > journals is too short let me know, I could easily add more journals to the > list that I respect. And I will give you another way to win the bet, if > Warren Buffett invests in a company started by Bem to cash in on this > revolutionary development and potential gold mine before October 20 2011 > then you get a thousand dollars, you only have to pay me a hundred dollars > if there is no journal paper or start up company investment by that date. > > John K Clark > > * > * > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 20 18:19:27 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:19:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CBF32AF.3070708@satx.rr.com> On 10/20/2010 11:30 AM, John Clark wrote: > By the way, I don't understand why you didn't take me up on my bet, it's > a easy way for you to make a thousand dollars. If you think my list of 3 > journals is too short let me know, I could easily add more journals to > the list that I respect. And I will give you another way to win the bet, > if Warren Buffett invests in a company started by Bem to cash in on this > revolutionary development and potential gold mine before October 20 2011 > then you get a thousand dollars, you only have to pay me a hundred > dollars if there is no journal paper or start up company investment by > that date. I haven't looked into this closely, but did any of those journals (or their 19 century equivalents) rush to publish Madame Sk?odowska?Curie's results?* Did investors plunge into schemes to use radioactivity for power? *We'll never know if they might have done; wiki says: Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 20 18:18:36 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 11:18:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com><24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net><4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com><32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Behalf Of Isabelle Hakala ... >...The funny thing is I totally believe in psi... I simply have doubts that someone has figured out how to prove it exists, without cheating somehow (which negates the proof). -Isabelle... Interesting take Isabelle. Quantum mechanics has features like your notion: phenomena that cannot be measured directly without significantly altering that which is being measured. I can't even ponder QM without getting completely mind boggled. I don't understand it, nor why god would be such a bastard as to set it up that way, assuming she had any choice in the matter. spike From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 20 17:22:35 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 10:22:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Enhanced humans: the new arms (nephilim) race In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0469F6A470284F3D81FB04C5D34C5D71@spike> >...On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes ... On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Keith Henson wrote: >>...I call bs. >...Seconded. The article is a typical ravening fear piece. It even asserts at one point that transforming into a posthuman automatically means loss of dignity... Ja. If anything, transforming into a posthuman would automatically mean a dramatic gain in dignity. spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Oct 20 19:07:38 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:07:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: Applicable http://xkcd.com/808/ On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 11:18 AM, spike wrote: > > On Behalf Of Isabelle Hakala > ... > > ? ? ? ?>...The funny thing is I totally believe in psi... I simply have > doubts that someone has figured out how to prove it exists, without cheating > somehow (which negates the proof). > > ? ? ? ?-Isabelle... > > Interesting take Isabelle. ?Quantum mechanics has features like your notion: > phenomena that cannot be measured directly without significantly altering > that which is being measured. ?I can't even ponder QM without getting > completely mind boggled. ?I don't understand it, nor why god would be such a > bastard as to set it up that way, assuming she had any choice in the matter. > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Oct 20 19:53:37 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 14:53:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CBF48C1.5090504@satx.rr.com> On 10/20/2010 1:08 PM, Isabelle Hakala wrote: > I simply have doubts that > someone has figured out how to prove it exists, without cheating somehow I know, it's... just... too... hard... to read the actual paper by Prof. Bem, which I url'd. Damien Broderick From ismirth at gmail.com Wed Oct 20 20:30:21 2010 From: ismirth at gmail.com (Isabelle Hakala) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:30:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: <4CBF48C1.5090504@satx.rr.com> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <4CBF48C1.5090504@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Dear Snarky Damien, I *did* read the paper, at least through the end of the first experiment, and honestly, unless they post the CODE for the program, there is no way to know if there is a cheat involved. I didn't have time to read the entire 65 page document, but after the first experiment I was pretty much done. Since the program chooses the placement of the picture AFTER the person inputs where they feel it will be, that could be RIFE for cheating. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Isabelle Hakala "Any person who says 'it can't be done' shouldn't be interrupting the people getting it done." "Do every single thing in life with love in your heart." On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 10/20/2010 1:08 PM, Isabelle Hakala wrote: > > I simply have doubts that >> someone has figured out how to prove it exists, without cheating somehow >> > > I know, it's... just... too... hard... to read the actual paper by Prof. > Bem, which I url'd. > > 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: From algaenymph at gmail.com Wed Oct 20 19:40:10 2010 From: algaenymph at gmail.com (AlgaeNymph) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 12:40:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CBF459A.90100@gmail.com> On 10/20/10 12:07 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > Applicable > > http://xkcd.com/808/ Just as I was going to link this... On a tangent, how would psi work? Everyone talks about what it does but nobody talks about how it does it. From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 20 20:13:09 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 13:13:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com><24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net><4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com><32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <3628E464D93C4B85ACE152FE98ABE6AB@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Keith Henson > Personality and Social Psychology > > Applicable > > http://xkcd.com/808/ > ... Ja, I am the first to admit QM works. I was right there in the physics lab in college with the double slit experiment, saw it, went crazy, saw it again, repeat. Five years later at China Lake, I just couldn't quite believe what I had seen, so I reproduced the experiment, and it still did exactly what QM predicted. I have never been able to get my mind around the notion that a particle can somehow metaphorically or mechanically split apart and pass thru two different holes simultaneously, then recombine. Alternately (for temporal vs spacial fans) that a wave can somehow undulate backwards and forwards in time and interfere with itself. Either explanation boggles the hell outta my mind, and I can't help getting the feeling there must be (there MUST BE!) some alternate explanation that no one has thought of yet. Please anyone here, I am open to suggestion, waaaay open: how and why does the double slit experiment work? I don't see wasting perfectly good money on psychadelic drugs, when one can blow the hell outta one's mind for free, just by pondering that one simple experiment. spike From scerir at alice.it Wed Oct 20 19:32:36 2010 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:32:36 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com><24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net><4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com><32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <5C840CC29A064E2DBFE842259408A636@PCserafino> > Interesting take Isabelle. Quantum mechanics has features like your notion: > phenomena that cannot be measured directly without significantly altering > that which is being measured. I can't even ponder QM without getting > completely mind boggled. I don't understand it, nor why god would be such a > bastard as to set it up that way, assuming she had any choice in the matter. > > spike Scott Aaronson wrote something about the "quantum" as an "operating system". <> http://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html Of course following this concept one could also ask if the "quantum" is the best available operating system, or not .... and why. (Einstein used to say something like "I wish to know if God had free will, or not, when he created these laws.") Serafino: But if quantum mechanics is an "operating system", or a 'syntax', does it make any sense to interpret quantum mechanics? Scott: I like that, serafino: "The Interpretation of Windows XP." At the risk of sounding like some Continental philosopher smoking his pipe and uttering vacuous profundities: the basic goal with interpretations is start from the "syntax" of quantum mechanics, and connect it to the "semantics" of what we actually experience. From seculartranshumanist at gmail.com Wed Oct 20 22:51:54 2010 From: seculartranshumanist at gmail.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:51:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Enhanced humans: the new arms (nephilim) race In-Reply-To: <0469F6A470284F3D81FB04C5D34C5D71@spike> References: <0469F6A470284F3D81FB04C5D34C5D71@spike> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:22 PM, spike wrote: > > Ja. ?If anything, transforming into a posthuman would automatically mean a > dramatic gain in dignity. Unfortunately, one of the most common arguments I've run across against Transhumanism is the "loss of human dignity" argument. Casual dismissal isn't the right way to deal with it, as it seems to be growing amongst those who can't find any argument against Transhumanist technologies and techniques from a utilitarian point of view. To take but one example, when Leon Kass was chairman of the President's council on Bioethics, they produced an anti-cloning polemic entitled "Human Cloning and Human Dignity." It doesn't surprise me in the least that the article posits resistance to human enhancement on "human dignity" grounds. It's a plea that Transhumanists need to develop a sound argument against, and get that argument out there. We could well find ourselves losing in the marketplace of ideas before we even knew there was a battle, if we go along with the "well, of course it doesn't offend human dignity; that's so obvious it doesn't even bear stating" line of thinking. Because to a lot of people, it's not so obvious. Joseph http://www.transhumanismtoday.com From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 20 23:29:21 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 18:29:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <4CBF48C1.5090504@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CBF7B51.6080600@satx.rr.com> On 10/20/2010 3:30 PM, Isabelle Hakala wrote: > I *did* read the paper, at least through the end of the first > experiment, and honestly, unless they post the CODE for the program, > there is no way to know if there is a cheat involved.... Since the program chooses the placement of the > picture AFTER the person inputs where they feel it will be, that could > be RIFE for cheating. Where does this hermeneutics of suspicion cease? Suppose I obtained the code for you, what would you do with it? (Especially since you gave up after reading only part of the formal paper.) And if you examined it closely and found it acceptable, how would you know that some evil scientist hadn't just *pretended* to use that code while really just typing out 65 pages of invented results (John Clark's default claim) and sending them off to gullible editors and referees, for whom careful scrutiny is apparently a totally new concept. I'm serious. What would satisfy you? What *could* satisfy you in this instance? Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 20 23:37:58 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:37:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Enhanced humans: the new arms (nephilim) race In-Reply-To: References: <0469F6A470284F3D81FB04C5D34C5D71@spike> Message-ID: <3DC5E5BEE33C4830A26DB9FCF7A350F1@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch > Subject: Re: [ExI] Enhanced humans: the new arms (nephilim) race > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:22 PM, spike wrote: > > > > Ja. ?If anything, transforming into a posthuman would automatically > > mean a dramatic gain in dignity. > > Unfortunately, one of the most common arguments I've run > across against Transhumanism is the "loss of human dignity" > argument. Casual dismissal isn't the right way to deal with > it, as it seems to be growing amongst those who can't find > any argument against Transhumanist technologies and > techniques from a utilitarian point of view... Joseph I have heard it before. I try the light hearted approach, pointing out that I have so much dignity, I could lose quite a bit of it and never miss it. But it isn't just me. Look at the clothing we have now, and compare to the clothing from a few hundred years ago. They looked reaaallly stupid, as dumb as those guys who wear their pants around their knees. So we gained a ton of dignity just by not wearing stupid looking clothing. Looks like we could give up all that and still be a breakeven with the old timers. Another thing that has occurred in just the past couple hundred years or less: universal warm running water in homes makes it possible to bathe every day, so we don't go around stinking. This is a huge human dignity advance, which we could cash in and still at least break even. Actually I agree Joseph. The human dignity argument is a vague, almost undefined notion that people pull out because they are masking something else entirely: intolerance for human inequality. If we develop a bunch of posthuman technologies, the benefits will go wildly disproportionately to those who are already advanced. It already works that way: aborigines didn't benefit much from the development of the PC or the internet. They are even farther behind now. For reasons I don't fully comprehend, humans vary widely on their tolerance for human inequality. I see inequality as completely inevitable: advancing technology gives godlike powers to those who master it and use it, but actually harms those who eschew it. The only way I can relate is to imagine a group of people who do some mysterious procedure, resulting in their having an average IQ of 160, live an average of 200 years, need to sleep only four hours a week, make a ton of money, never get sick and can do 400 pull-ups. It would feel threatening I suppose to live in a world where such a people existed, especially if they kept that technology to themselves. spike From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Oct 20 23:58:48 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 16:58:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Enhanced humans: the new arms (nephilim) race In-Reply-To: <3DC5E5BEE33C4830A26DB9FCF7A350F1@spike> References: <0469F6A470284F3D81FB04C5D34C5D71@spike> <3DC5E5BEE33C4830A26DB9FCF7A350F1@spike> Message-ID: What I found fascinating about the article was the claim that the U.S. government/military has already realized the importance of creating transhumans for the sake of national security and martial superiority. I would say the race for transhuman supermen and seedA.I. is off and running!! John On 10/20/10, spike wrote: > > >> ...On Behalf Of Joseph Bloch >> Subject: Re: [ExI] Enhanced humans: the new arms (nephilim) race >> >> On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 1:22 PM, spike wrote: >> > >> > Ja. ?If anything, transforming into a posthuman would automatically >> > mean a dramatic gain in dignity. >> >> Unfortunately, one of the most common arguments I've run >> across against Transhumanism is the "loss of human dignity" >> argument. Casual dismissal isn't the right way to deal with >> it, as it seems to be growing amongst those who can't find >> any argument against Transhumanist technologies and >> techniques from a utilitarian point of view... Joseph > > I have heard it before. I try the light hearted approach, pointing out that > I have so much dignity, I could lose quite a bit of it and never miss it. > But it isn't just me. Look at the clothing we have now, and compare to the > clothing from a few hundred years ago. They looked reaaallly stupid, as > dumb as those guys who wear their pants around their knees. So we gained a > ton of dignity just by not wearing stupid looking clothing. Looks like we > could give up all that and still be a breakeven with the old timers. > Another thing that has occurred in just the past couple hundred years or > less: universal warm running water in homes makes it possible to bathe every > day, so we don't go around stinking. This is a huge human dignity advance, > which we could cash in and still at least break even. > > Actually I agree Joseph. The human dignity argument is a vague, almost > undefined notion that people pull out because they are masking something > else entirely: intolerance for human inequality. If we develop a bunch of > posthuman technologies, the benefits will go wildly disproportionately to > those who are already advanced. It already works that way: aborigines > didn't benefit much from the development of the PC or the internet. They > are even farther behind now. > > For reasons I don't fully comprehend, humans vary widely on their tolerance > for human inequality. I see inequality as completely inevitable: advancing > technology gives godlike powers to those who master it and use it, but > actually harms those who eschew it. The only way I can relate is to imagine > a group of people who do some mysterious procedure, resulting in their > having an average IQ of 160, live an average of 200 years, need to sleep > only four hours a week, make a ton of money, never get sick and can do 400 > pull-ups. It would feel threatening I suppose to live in a world where such > a people existed, especially if they kept that technology to themselves. > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Oct 21 00:14:39 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:14:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Enhanced humans In-Reply-To: <3DC5E5BEE33C4830A26DB9FCF7A350F1@spike> References: <0469F6A470284F3D81FB04C5D34C5D71@spike> <3DC5E5BEE33C4830A26DB9FCF7A350F1@spike> Message-ID: <4CBF85EF.4040008@satx.rr.com> On 10/20/2010 6:37 PM, spike wrote: > imagine > a group of people who do some mysterious procedure, resulting in their > having an average IQ of 160, live an average of 200 years, need to sleep > only four hours a week, make a ton of money, never get sick and can do 400 > pull-ups. It would feel threatening I suppose to live in a world where such > a people existed, especially if they kept that technology to themselves. But as the much-praised flick GATTACA proved (by showing it happen, so there, it must be true!), the frail human will best the unchallenged uber JUST BY SHEER GRIT. Because that's what human is, not like all those disgusting clone robot Mr. Spock things. The real problem will only arise if the ubers *do* sequester it to themselves, which they might well do, not being ethical rational Mr. Spocks after all. This would be especially vile and infuriating if the relevant tech could be scaled up and made inexpensive, even if only by a form of prenatal "immunization" that would strand us poor adult shmucks in our current unter status but see the next gen enter the superman era. Currently, the genetic disposition for rage and revenge in the face of gross inequality and inequity is ready to pop in the USA, because as I read today (and we surely all know): < income in America is now more concentrated in fewer hands than it's been in 80 years. Almost a quarter of total income generated in the United States is going to the top 1 percent of Americans. The top one-tenth of one percent of Americans now earn as much as the bottom 120 million of us. Who are these people? With the exception of a few entrepreneurs like Bill Gates, they're top executives of big corporations and Wall Street, hedge fund managers, and private equity managers. They include the Koch brothers, whose wealth increased by billions last year, and who are now funding tea party candidates across the nation. Which gets us to the second part of the perfect storm. A relatively few Americans are buying our democracy as never before. And they're doing it completely in secret. Hundreds of millions of dollars are pouring into advertisements for and against candidates -- without a trace of where the dollars are coming from. They're laundered through a handful of groups. Fred Maleck, whom you may remember as deputy director of Richard Nixon's notorious Committee to Reelect the President (dubbed Creep in the Watergate scandal), is running one of them. Republican operative Karl Rove runs another. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a third. The Supreme Court's Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission made it possible. The Federal Election Commission says only 32 percent of groups paying for election ads are disclosing the names of their donors. By comparison, in the 2006 midterm, 97 percent disclosed; in 2008, almost half disclosed. We're back to the late 19th century when the lackeys of robber barons literally deposited sacks of cash on the desks of friendly legislators. The public never knew who was bribing whom.... Most Americans are in trouble. Their jobs, incomes, savings, and even homes are on the line. ...Yet their state and local taxes are rising. And their services are being cut. Teachers and firefighters are being laid off. The roads and bridges they count on are crumbling, pipelines are leaking, schools are dilapidated, and public libraries are being shut. There's no jobs bill to speak of. No WPA to hire those who can't find jobs in the private sector. Unemployment insurance doesn't reach half of the unemployed. Washington says nothing can be done. There's no money left. No money? The marginal income tax rate on the very rich is the lowest it's been in more than 80 years. Under President Dwight Eisenhower (who no one would have accused of being a radical) it was 91 percent. Now it's 36 percent. Congress is even fighting over whether to end the temporary Bush tax cut for the rich and return them to the Clinton top tax of 39 percent. Much of the income of the highest earners is treated as capital gains, anyway -- subject to a 15 percent tax. The typical hedge-fund and private-equity manager paid only 17 percent last year. Their earnings were not exactly modest. The top 15 hedge-fund managers earned an average of $1 billion. Congress won't even return to the estate tax in place during the Clinton administration - which applied only to those in the top 2 percent of incomes. It won't limit the tax deductions of the very rich, which include interest payments on multimillion dollar mortgages. (Yet Wall Street refuses to allow homeowners who can't meet mortgage payments to include their primary residence in personal bankruptcy.) There's plenty of money to help stranded Americans, just not the political will to raise it. And at the rate secret money is flooding our political system, even less political will in the future. The perfect storm: An unprecedented concentration of income and wealth at the top; a record amount of secret money flooding our democracy; and a public becoming increasingly angry and cynical about a government that's raising its taxes, reducing its services, and unable to get it back to work. We're losing our democracy to a different system. It's called plutocracy. > Damien Broderick From rpwl at lightlink.com Thu Oct 21 00:17:19 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 20:17:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <4CBF48C1.5090504@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CBF868F.1080905@lightlink.com> Isabelle Hakala wrote: > Dear Snarky Damien, > > I *did* read the paper, at least through the end of the first > experiment, and honestly, unless they post the CODE for the program, > there is no way to know if there is a cheat involved. I didn't have time > to read the entire 65 page document, but after the first experiment I > was pretty much done. Since the program chooses the placement of the > picture AFTER the person inputs where they feel it will be, that could > be RIFE for cheating. Uh, I think that Damien's comment kinda presumed you wouldn't have read it and THEN come up with the "but they could have just faked it" objection. That objection is just too far below the belt. I mean, the same objection works for Einstein, too: "Hey Albert, I don't buy this stupid relativity crap: all those people who claim to have made measurements consistent with your theory ... they could all have just faked their results". Richard Loosemore > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Isabelle Hakala > "Any person who says 'it can't be done' shouldn't be interrupting the > people getting it done." > "Do every single thing in life with love in your heart." > > > On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 3:53 PM, Damien Broderick > wrote: > > On 10/20/2010 1:08 PM, Isabelle Hakala wrote: > > I simply have doubts that > someone has figured out how to prove it exists, without cheating > somehow > > > I know, it's... just... too... hard... to read the actual paper by > Prof. Bem, which I url'd. > > 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 From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Thu Oct 21 00:19:36 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 17:19:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Enhanced humans In-Reply-To: <4CBF85EF.4040008@satx.rr.com> References: <0469F6A470284F3D81FB04C5D34C5D71@spike> <3DC5E5BEE33C4830A26DB9FCF7A350F1@spike> <4CBF85EF.4040008@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: I don't know, Damien... It seems the "sheeple" just go along with things like longsuffering Russian serfs from medieval times... John On 10/20/10, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 10/20/2010 6:37 PM, spike wrote: > >> imagine >> a group of people who do some mysterious procedure, resulting in their >> having an average IQ of 160, live an average of 200 years, need to sleep >> only four hours a week, make a ton of money, never get sick and can do 400 >> pull-ups. It would feel threatening I suppose to live in a world where >> such >> a people existed, especially if they kept that technology to themselves. > > But as the much-praised flick GATTACA proved (by showing it happen, so > there, it must be true!), the frail human will best the unchallenged > uber JUST BY SHEER GRIT. Because that's what human is, not like all > those disgusting clone robot Mr. Spock things. anyone missed it> > > The real problem will only arise if the ubers *do* sequester it to > themselves, which they might well do, not being ethical rational Mr. > Spocks after all. This would be especially vile and infuriating if the > relevant tech could be scaled up and made inexpensive, even if only by a > form of prenatal "immunization" that would strand us poor adult shmucks > in our current unter status but see the next gen enter the superman era. > > Currently, the genetic disposition for rage and revenge in the face of > gross inequality and inequity is ready to pop in the USA, because as I > read today (and we surely all know): > > > > < income in America is now more concentrated in fewer hands than it's > been in 80 years. Almost a quarter of total income generated in the > United States is going to the top 1 percent of Americans. > > The top one-tenth of one percent of Americans now earn as much as the > bottom 120 million of us. > > Who are these people? With the exception of a few entrepreneurs like > Bill Gates, they're top executives of big corporations and Wall Street, > hedge fund managers, and private equity managers. They include the Koch > brothers, whose wealth increased by billions last year, and who are now > funding tea party candidates across the nation. > > Which gets us to the second part of the perfect storm. A relatively few > Americans are buying our democracy as never before. And they're doing it > completely in secret. > > Hundreds of millions of dollars are pouring into advertisements for and > against candidates -- without a trace of where the dollars are coming > from. They're laundered through a handful of groups. Fred Maleck, whom > you may remember as deputy director of Richard Nixon's notorious > Committee to Reelect the President (dubbed Creep in the Watergate > scandal), is running one of them. Republican operative Karl Rove runs > another. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a third. > > The Supreme Court's Citizens United vs. the Federal Election Commission > made it possible. The Federal Election Commission says only 32 percent > of groups paying for election ads are disclosing the names of their > donors. By comparison, in the 2006 midterm, 97 percent disclosed; in > 2008, almost half disclosed. > > We're back to the late 19th century when the lackeys of robber barons > literally deposited sacks of cash on the desks of friendly legislators. > The public never knew who was bribing whom.... > > Most Americans are in trouble. Their jobs, incomes, savings, and even > homes are on the line. ...Yet their state and local taxes are rising. > And their services are being cut. Teachers and firefighters are being > laid off. The roads and bridges they count on are crumbling, pipelines > are leaking, schools are dilapidated, and public libraries are being shut. > > There's no jobs bill to speak of. No WPA to hire those who can't find > jobs in the private sector. Unemployment insurance doesn't reach half of > the unemployed. > > Washington says nothing can be done. There's no money left. > > No money? The marginal income tax rate on the very rich is the lowest > it's been in more than 80 years. Under President Dwight Eisenhower (who > no one would have accused of being a radical) it was 91 percent. Now > it's 36 percent. Congress is even fighting over whether to end the > temporary Bush tax cut for the rich and return them to the Clinton top > tax of 39 percent. > > Much of the income of the highest earners is treated as capital gains, > anyway -- subject to a 15 percent tax. The typical hedge-fund and > private-equity manager paid only 17 percent last year. Their earnings > were not exactly modest. The top 15 hedge-fund managers earned an > average of $1 billion. > > Congress won't even return to the estate tax in place during the Clinton > administration - which applied only to those in the top 2 percent of > incomes. > > It won't limit the tax deductions of the very rich, which include > interest payments on multimillion dollar mortgages. (Yet Wall Street > refuses to allow homeowners who can't meet mortgage payments to include > their primary residence in personal bankruptcy.) > > There's plenty of money to help stranded Americans, just not the > political will to raise it. And at the rate secret money is flooding our > political system, even less political will in the future. > > The perfect storm: An unprecedented concentration of income and wealth > at the top; a record amount of secret money flooding our democracy; and > a public becoming increasingly angry and cynical about a government > that's raising its taxes, reducing its services, and unable to get it > back to work. > > We're losing our democracy to a different system. It's called plutocracy. > > > 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 Thu Oct 21 00:40:02 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:40:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: <4CBF868F.1080905@lightlink.com> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <4CBF48C1.5090504@satx.rr.com> <4CBF868F.1080905@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <4CBF8BE2.4080706@satx.rr.com> On 10/20/2010 7:17 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: > I think that Damien's comment kinda presumed you wouldn't have read it > and THEN come up with the "but they could have just faked it" objection. Exactly. Why bother reading even a single word of a scientific paper if that's your preordained position? And if it's not, what would satisfy Isabelle, who began by stating: "I totally believe in psi... I simply have doubts that someone has figured out how to prove it exists, without cheating somehow." This is a very odd declaration, not the sort of thing one might propose about anything other than "faith-based" (i.e. public-evidence-free) propositions, I'd have thought. Damien Broderick From kanzure at gmail.com Thu Oct 21 00:15:26 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 19:15:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Enhanced humans: the new arms (nephilim) race In-Reply-To: <3DC5E5BEE33C4830A26DB9FCF7A350F1@spike> References: <0469F6A470284F3D81FB04C5D34C5D71@spike> <3DC5E5BEE33C4830A26DB9FCF7A350F1@spike> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 6:37 PM, spike wrote: > else entirely: intolerance for human inequality. ?If we develop a bunch of > posthuman technologies, the benefits will go wildly disproportionately to > those who are already advanced. ?It already works that way: aborigines > didn't benefit much from the development of the PC or the internet. ?They > are even farther behind now. That sounds like precursor rhetoric to calls to update the USPTO, not necessarily anti-transhumanism. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 From seculartranshumanist at gmail.com Thu Oct 21 01:05:15 2010 From: seculartranshumanist at gmail.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:05:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Enhanced humans: the new arms (nephilim) race In-Reply-To: <3DC5E5BEE33C4830A26DB9FCF7A350F1@spike> References: <0469F6A470284F3D81FB04C5D34C5D71@spike> <3DC5E5BEE33C4830A26DB9FCF7A350F1@spike> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:37 PM, spike wrote: > >?The human dignity argument is a vague, almost > undefined notion that people pull out because they are masking something > else entirely: intolerance for human inequality. ?If we develop a bunch of > posthuman technologies, the benefits will go wildly disproportionately to > those who are already advanced. ?It already works that way: aborigines > didn't benefit much from the development of the PC or the internet. ?They > are even farther behind now. I think this is where some of the disconnect between Transhumanists and the rest of the world might be creeping in, and thus we're not answering the argument sufficiently well. I don't think Leon Kass or Thomas Horn are using "human dignity" in any way is referring to inequities in availability of >H technology. They're talking about any adaptation of technologies that serves to distance adapters from "humans as created in God's image" (what I might call "baseline humans") as being inherently damaging to what they define as "human dignity". In that conception, dignity is inversely proportional to alterations from the baseline, or perhaps more bluntly, human dignity is defined as what God wants humans to be like. Naturally, they don't include things like eyeglasses or pacemakers, but nobody ever accused them of being intellectually coherent. Just effective (in large part because, as you point out, quite vague in their assertions, appealing to emotions rather than reason). On the other end of the spectrum, the Council of Europe's "Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Dignity of the Human Being with regard to the Application of Biology and Medicine: Convention on Human Rights and Biomedicine" (gasp), found here: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Treaties/Html/164.htm , you'll see they're using "dignity" to refer to individual choice. As in, dignity is harmed when medical interventions are forced on people. They give a little lip-service to universal availability, but the specifics all deal with not forcing medical procedures or testing on individuals. It's interesting, though, that "fairness in availability" was the first thing that came to mind when you considered what "human dignity" meant on a practical level. It's not, I think, what others think when they use it, but I certainly wouldn't dismiss it out of hand as a valid interpretation of the phrase. Joseph http://www.transhumanismtoday.com From seculartranshumanist at gmail.com Thu Oct 21 01:06:22 2010 From: seculartranshumanist at gmail.com (Joseph Bloch) Date: Wed, 20 Oct 2010 21:06:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Enhanced humans: the new arms (nephilim) race In-Reply-To: References: <0469F6A470284F3D81FB04C5D34C5D71@spike> <3DC5E5BEE33C4830A26DB9FCF7A350F1@spike> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:58 PM, John Grigg wrote: > What I found fascinating about the article was the claim that the U.S. > government/military has already realized the importance of creating > transhumans for the sake of national security and martial superiority. > ?I would say the race for transhuman supermen and seedA.I. is off and > running!! Hey, if I thought it was real on a practical level, I'd seriously consider re-enlisting so I could volunteer! Joseph http://www.transhumanismtoday.com From giulio at gmail.com Thu Oct 21 08:51:58 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:51:58 +0200 Subject: [ExI] TransVision 2010: Final program, LAST DAY to register Message-ID: TransVision 2010: Final program, LAST DAY to register http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/2010/10/21/transvision-2010-final-program-last-day-to-register/ TransVision 2010 will start tomorrow Friday October 22 at the Hotel dei Cavalieri in Milan at 3pm local time. We have published the final version of the conference program, updated with new abstracts by speakers including Max More, Graziano Cecchini, David Orban, Roberto Marchesini, Natasha Vita-More and, of course, Stefano Vaj and Riccardo Campa of the Italian Transhumanist Association. Note that TODAY IS THE LAST DAY to register for the conference. REGISTER NOW to reserve your place. http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/registration/ Registration will continue at the desk until the conference hall is full. Those who have registered to participate remotely in the TVirtual online extension of TransVision 2010, hosted by the teleXLR8 project based on the Teleplace online telepresence platform, will be able to watch all talks in realtime, and interact with speakers and other participants. Please see the instructions for TVirtual participants. To register for TVirtual, choose "TVirtual ticket, 3 days" in the registration page http://transvision2010.wordpress.com/registration/ From scerir at alice.it Thu Oct 21 09:37:28 2010 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:37:28 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: <3628E464D93C4B85ACE152FE98ABE6AB@spike> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com><24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net><4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com><32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <3628E464D93C4B85ACE152FE98ABE6AB@spike> Message-ID: <7D15D458495A46B9ABE004D0AF1312C7@PCserafino> > Either explanation boggles the hell outta my mind, and I can't help getting > the feeling there must be (there MUST BE!) some alternate explanation that > no one has thought of yet. Please anyone here, I am open to suggestion, > waaaay open: how and why does the double slit experiment work? > spike According to Bohr the problem is due to the very existence of the "quantum of action" itself. 'However, since the discovery of the quantum of action, we know that the classical ideal cannot be attained in the description of atomic phenomena. In particular, any attempt at an ordering in space-time leads to a break in the causal chain, since such an attempt is bound up with an essential exchange of momentum and energy between the individuals and the measuring rods and clocks used for observation; and just this exchange cannot be taken into account if the measuring instruments are to fulfil their purpose. Conversely, any conclusion, based in an unambiguous manner upon the strict conservation of energy and momentum, with regard to the dynamical behaviour of the individual units obviously necessitates a complete renunciation of following their course in space and time'. -Niels Bohr, Atomic 'Theory and the Description of Nature', pp. 97-8, Cambridge University Press, 1934. Here is a gedanken experiment (due to Zurek and Wootters, 1979). Imagine a two-slit interferometer and photons arriving at the screen. When we say "photons" we do not mean "particles", and we do not mean "waves", in general we mean "particle-waves", since a "wave" is something existing on the future (still to be measured), while "particle" is someting existing in the past (already measured). So, you get the usual interferential pattern (because there are, for each photon, two "amplitudes" coming from each of the two slits). Now, let us suppose, for a moment, we have a "smart" screen which can register, for each photon arriving at the screen, from the two slits, both its position (the point of impact at the screen) and its momentum (that is to say, the direction from the single slit it entered to the point of inpact at the screen - - here we assume that geometric optics holds, and this is a strong assumption.) What would now be the pattern on the "smart" screen? An interferential pattern, because the screen registers the positions? Or a smooth pattern, because the "smart" screen also registers the momentum (thus distinguishing the paths)? Momentum and position are, of course, observables which do not commute. Well, according to Bohr, the situation, with regard to the dynamical behaviour of the individual photons arriving at the screen, necessitates a *renunciation* of following their course in space and time. In other words or the assumption of geometric optics is wrong, or our "smart" screen, because it can register the momentum (and the direction) of each photon arriving at the screen, would cause a retro-action on each travelling photon, transforming the potential interference pattern into an actual smooth pattern. Another way to put it is in terms of finiteness information (Zeilinger). That is to say that a single quantum only carries a limited quantity of available information about itself. So you can ask something (i.e. from which slit do you come?) and you get the exact answer, at the cost of loosing any other information, since the apriori available information is limited and finite. From bbenzai at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 09:51:05 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:51:05 +0100 (BST) Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <72167.40663.qm@web114417.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> AlgaeNymph asked: > On a tangent, how would psi work? Everyone talks > about what it does but > nobody talks about how it does it. Nobody talks about how it does it for the same reason nobody talks about how astrology works, or how touching wood prevents mishaps. Ben Zaiboc From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Oct 21 14:18:56 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:18:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: <72167.40663.qm@web114417.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <72167.40663.qm@web114417.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CC04BD0.3080307@satx.rr.com> On 10/21/2010 4:51 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: >> > how would psi work? > Nobody talks about how it does it for the same reason > nobody talks about how astrology works, or how > touching wood prevents mishaps. That is, you claim it does not exist except as foolish superstition. Since you're so sure that's the case, how do you explain Prof. Bem's results? He just made it all up and somehow hoodwinked a prestigious journal? He made a subtle error that misled him and the referees? If you have a technical explanation for his anomalous results, let's hear it; this would be a genuine contribution to science. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Oct 21 14:32:30 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:32:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <4CBF48C1.5090504@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CC04EFE.7040900@satx.rr.com> On 10/20/2010 3:30 PM, Isabelle Hakala wrote: > I *did* read the paper, at least through the end of the first > experiment, and honestly, unless they post the CODE for the program, > there is no way to know if there is a cheat involved. Prof. Bem tells me: > I didn't have time > to read the entire 65 page document Prof. Bem notes that by Isabelle's own admission she Damien Broderick From ismirth at gmail.com Thu Oct 21 14:47:52 2010 From: ismirth at gmail.com (Isabelle Hakala) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 10:47:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: <4CBF7B51.6080600@satx.rr.com> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <4CBF48C1.5090504@satx.rr.com> <4CBF7B51.6080600@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Honestly, if they posted the code then *anyone* could repeat the experiments, that is the whole purpose of getting published, isn't it? Why does someone have to read the whole paper when if the first experiment is flawed, then it doesn't matter what the rest of the experimentation is. I actually BELIEVE in psi. I have had tons of things happen that have freaked those out around me because I knew what was going to happen, before it happened, and I had told those around me before it happened. My lack of faith isn't in the psi. My lack of faith is in coming up with something that can actually prove it exists. Also, so far as I can see, the purpose of the experiment was to see if people can see the future. However, these experiments actually could be evidence that people EFFECT the future. And are more likely to effect it when a positive stimulus is used. does that count as psi as well? I think it does, but again, it shows flawed thinking on the part of the scientists if they have assumed it means that it means the PRIMING is working. It could mean that their decision is effect which thing is selected for priming. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Isabelle Hakala "Any person who says 'it can't be done' shouldn't be interrupting the people getting it done." "Do every single thing in life with love in your heart." On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 7:29 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 10/20/2010 3:30 PM, Isabelle Hakala wrote: > > I *did* read the paper, at least through the end of the first >> experiment, and honestly, unless they post the CODE for the program, >> there is no way to know if there is a cheat involved.... Since the program >> chooses the placement of the >> >> picture AFTER the person inputs where they feel it will be, that could >> be RIFE for cheating. >> > > Where does this hermeneutics of suspicion cease? Suppose I obtained the > code for you, what would you do with it? (Especially since you gave up after > reading only part of the formal paper.) And if you examined it closely and > found it acceptable, how would you know that some evil scientist hadn't just > *pretended* to use that code while really just typing out 65 pages of > invented results (John Clark's default claim) and sending them off to > gullible editors and referees, for whom careful scrutiny is apparently a > totally new concept. > > I'm serious. What would satisfy you? What *could* satisfy you in this > instance? > > > 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: From rpwl at lightlink.com Thu Oct 21 15:01:53 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:01:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Deep roots of Quantum Mechanics [WAS Re: Psi in a major science journal...] In-Reply-To: <3628E464D93C4B85ACE152FE98ABE6AB@spike> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com><24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net><4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com><32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <3628E464D93C4B85ACE152FE98ABE6AB@spike> Message-ID: <4CC055E1.8030003@lightlink.com> spike wrote: > Either explanation boggles the hell outta my mind, and I can't help getting > the feeling there must be (there MUST BE!) some alternate explanation that > no one has thought of yet. Please anyone here, I am open to suggestion, > waaaay open: how and why does the double slit experiment work? In answer to this, and your previous question about whether God had any choice in making the universe in a quantum way... The answer is probably going to come down to the fact that you actually cannot have a universe in which things can be measured to infinite precision, without things touching each other. (This is an extension of the Maxwell's Demon issue). If particles could do that, it would have to involve some kind of telepathy between them (they would have to collect information about each other without interfering with one another). If they could do that, you suddenly have a helluva mind-body problem (how does the non-touching gathering of information interface to the behavior of the particles that is part of the regular universe of physics?). So it might well be that no matter how long you sit around figuring out how to invent a universe, all the designs involving perfect measurement have to be thrown in God's trashcan, and the only one that works has a breakdown at some scale. The quantum scale. Then the rest -- double slit experiment and all -- follows from that one premise. I keep meaning to write this up (if someone has not done so already), but don't have the time. Richard Loosemore From rpwl at lightlink.com Thu Oct 21 15:03:58 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:03:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: <72167.40663.qm@web114417.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <72167.40663.qm@web114417.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CC0565E.1040904@lightlink.com> Ben Zaiboc wrote: > AlgaeNymph asked: > >> On a tangent, how would psi work? Everyone talks >> about what it does but >> nobody talks about how it does it. > > Nobody talks about how it does it for the same reason > nobody talks about how astrology works, or how > touching wood prevents mishaps. Actually, this is just factually incorrect. Me, personally, I have read dozens of papers that try to analyze how it works. They may not be good explanations, but they are attempts, at least. Richard Loosemore From ismirth at gmail.com Thu Oct 21 15:04:05 2010 From: ismirth at gmail.com (Isabelle Hakala) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:04:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: <4CBF8BE2.4080706@satx.rr.com> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <4CBF48C1.5090504@satx.rr.com> <4CBF868F.1080905@lightlink.com> <4CBF8BE2.4080706@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: It seems that you are jumping down my throat because I am skeptical about the processes that they are coming up with. I read it until it was obvious to *me* that it was easily fakable in the results, and then why bother continuing. Also, their conjecture is flawed. And in no way have I stated anything that is a 'preordained' description (stating I have doubts, doesn't preordain a single thing). Perhaps you need to ask yourself why you are so touchy (defensive) about someone being skeptical about results that don't actually appear to prove anything? If you want to believe these results means something, then by all means, believe. I am not telling you to believe, or not believe. I was simply joining in on the conversation. I had thought this would be a forum that would WANT people to create higher standards for 'proof' and thus create a higher level of credibility for these 'fringe' things that we are interested in. I don't want to be attacked for stating we had higher standards, showing how the standards are lacking, and feeling that most experiments that people come up with to try to prove these things have too many loop holes in them. Now that I see that one may download the programs I will go see about downloading them, and giving them a try. If it is truly possible, then it should be possible to improve with practice, right? Well, I am up for it. Let's just have a look-see. I invite everyone to download it and have at it too. Wouldn't we all like to be able to read the future? I am serious. We should all try it. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Isabelle Hakala "Any person who says 'it can't be done' shouldn't be interrupting the people getting it done." "Do every single thing in life with love in your heart." -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rpwl at lightlink.com Thu Oct 21 15:10:05 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:10:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <4CBF48C1.5090504@satx.rr.com> <4CBF7B51.6080600@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CC057CD.6000605@lightlink.com> Isabelle Hakala wrote: > Also, so far as I can see, the purpose of the experiment was to see if > people can see the future. However, these experiments actually could be > evidence that people EFFECT the future. And are more likely to effect it > when a positive stimulus is used. does that count as psi as well? I > think it does, but again, it shows flawed thinking on the part of the > scientists if they have assumed it means that it means the PRIMING is > working. It could mean that their decision is effect which thing is > selected for priming. You're point is well taken, but please restrain the urge to shout it :-) because this issue has been discussed in the research parapsychology community at least as far back as the early 1980s, when I was active in the field. The situation is this. People have to talk about the results of these kinds of experiments using the simplest (occam's razorish) explanation, so they might refer to the experiment as a test of precognition, but they (and all the professional researcher reading the paper, who are familiar with the field) know full well that other explanations (like affecting the future rather than seeing it) are possible. It is just a convention that they talk in terms of the simplest model, that is all. It makes for more sanity all around. And besides, doesn't Bem try to be neutral on this issue? Doesn't he refer to it as "anomalous information transfer", or some such? Richard Loosemore From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Oct 21 15:02:47 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:02:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 10/21/2010 4:51 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > >>> > ?how would psi work? > >> Nobody talks about how it does it for the same reason >> nobody talks about how astrology works, or how >> touching wood prevents mishaps. > > That is, you claim it does not exist except as foolish superstition. The meta question is why people are so attracted to this subject. The answer, of course, has roots in our evolutionary past, but the connection is not clear to me. Keith From rpwl at lightlink.com Thu Oct 21 15:29:10 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:29:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <4CBF48C1.5090504@satx.rr.com> <4CBF7B51.6080600@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CC05C46.7000005@lightlink.com> RESEND. Arrrgggghh I said "You're" instead of "your". Time to call my brain surgeon for an oil and filter change. Isabelle Hakala wrote: > Also, so far as I can see, the purpose of the experiment was to see if > people can see the future. However, these experiments actually could be > evidence that people EFFECT the future. And are more likely to effect it > when a positive stimulus is used. does that count as psi as well? I > think it does, but again, it shows flawed thinking on the part of the > scientists if they have assumed it means that it means the PRIMING is > working. It could mean that their decision is effect which thing is > selected for priming. Your point is well taken, but please restrain the urge to shout it :-) because this issue has been discussed in the research parapsychology community at least as far back as the early 1980s, when I was active in the field. The situation is this. People have to talk about the results of these kinds of experiments using the simplest (occam's razorish) explanation, so they might refer to the experiment as a test of precognition, but they (and all the professional researcher reading the paper, who are familiar with the field) know full well that other explanations (like affecting the future rather than seeing it) are possible. It is just a convention that they talk in terms of the simplest model, that is all. It makes for more sanity all around. And besides, doesn't Bem try to be neutral on this issue? Doesn't he refer to it as "anomalous information transfer", or some such? Richard Loosemore From rpwl at lightlink.com Thu Oct 21 15:34:33 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 11:34:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CC05D89.3000105@lightlink.com> Keith Henson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: >> On 10/21/2010 4:51 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: >> >>>>> how would psi work? >>> Nobody talks about how it does it for the same reason >>> nobody talks about how astrology works, or how >>> touching wood prevents mishaps. >> That is, you claim it does not exist except as foolish superstition. > > The meta question is why people are so attracted to this subject. > > The answer, of course, has roots in our evolutionary past, but the > connection is not clear to me. ... and yet you (superstitiously?) cling to the belief that it does have roots in our evolutionary past. The next meta question is why people are so attracted to the idea that everything has roots in our evolutionary past. The answer, of course, has roots in computational cognitive psychology, but the exact locus of the effect is not clear to me. Richard Loosemore ;-) From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Oct 21 15:54:09 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 08:54:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: <4CC0565E.1040904@lightlink.com> References: <72167.40663.qm@web114417.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC0565E.1040904@lightlink.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote: snip > Actually, this is just factually incorrect. ?Me, personally, I have read > dozens of papers that try to analyze how it works. ?They may not be good > explanations, but they are attempts, at least. I can't imagine reading one, much less dozens. Did any of them make sense? Keith PS From algaenymph at gmail.com Thu Oct 21 16:26:19 2010 From: algaenymph at gmail.com (AlgaeNymph) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:26:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: <4CC0565E.1040904@lightlink.com> References: <72167.40663.qm@web114417.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC0565E.1040904@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <4CC069AB.1060609@gmail.com> On 10/21/10 8:03 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote: > Actually, this is just factually incorrect. Me, personally, I have > read dozens of papers that try to analyze how it works. They may not > be good explanations, but they are attempts, at least. Do you know of them, or where specifically I can find them? Also, what explanations did they give? From rpwl at lightlink.com Thu Oct 21 16:49:58 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:49:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: References: <72167.40663.qm@web114417.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC0565E.1040904@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <4CC06F36.9020201@lightlink.com> Keith Henson wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 8:03 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote: > > snip > >> Actually, this is just factually incorrect. Me, personally, I have read >> dozens of papers that try to analyze how it works. They may not be good >> explanations, but they are attempts, at least. > > I can't imagine reading one, much less dozens. > > Did any of them make sense? Well, define "make sense". :-) I have read papers on computational cognitive psychology and artificial general intelligence that were pointless drivel from one end to the other, far worse than these theoretical psi papers, so it's kind of a fuzzy category..... Anyhow, the examples of theoretical psi papers that I remember made sense in that they tried hard to grapple with the way that psi might arise from quantum mechanics, or they tried to deal with the "observer problem". I happen to think that even at their best they did not succeed, but they were damn good for what they were: one cannot condemn such works just because they do not find a viable theory. The best of the theoretical ideas would be things like the "conformance behavior" model, but that was a long way from an explanation. More like a reframing of the data. But if you look at the history of Newton's struggle with the concepts of motion, you will find that 99% of the job that he claimed to have done, was exactly that struggle pin down the exact way to think about the issue... FWIW I stopped doing anything in the field because I felt that (a) nobody was making any theoretical progress and I didn't want to be the only person doing it, and (b) I couldn't stand the idea of being hated by a bunch of scientific bigots for the rest of my career (and it became clear that there were plenty of those). Richard Loosemore From rpwl at lightlink.com Thu Oct 21 17:04:58 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:04:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: <4CC069AB.1060609@gmail.com> References: <72167.40663.qm@web114417.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC0565E.1040904@lightlink.com> <4CC069AB.1060609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4CC072BA.1050806@lightlink.com> AlgaeNymph wrote: > On 10/21/10 8:03 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote: >> Actually, this is just factually incorrect. Me, personally, I have >> read dozens of papers that try to analyze how it works. They may not >> be good explanations, but they are attempts, at least. > > Do you know of them, or where specifically I can find them? Also, what > explanations did they give? See previous comments to Keith Henson. The ones I can remember were mostly in EJP and JP (European Journal of Parapsychology and Journal of Parapsychology). They would be from the early 80s. As I said in the other message, I do not think they succeeded. But if you read them, you can see people making serious efforts to wrestle with the titanic problem of making theoretical sense of psi. Mostly they related to quantum mechanics, since some relationship with the observer issue in QM seems to be involved. Trouble is, intentionality. You can sling QM ideas around all you like, but at the end of the day you have to connect them to the fact that what people *intend* is related to what happens. That is bad news, theory-wise. If you are able to find lists of contents for EJP from the early 80s you may be able to track down some of those papers. Or you could ILL them from your library of choice. I am so out of date I cannot even recall the names of the main people. I do know, however, that some of them left the field, as I did, due to lack of funding and lack of respect. Richard Loosemore From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Oct 21 16:58:08 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:58:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology. In-Reply-To: References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com><24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net><4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com><32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <76602FBC-36CD-4DC3-85C9-6715EBEC49F4@bellsouth.net> On Oct 20, 2010, at 2:18 PM, spike wrote: > Interesting take Isabelle. Quantum mechanics has features like your notion: > phenomena that cannot be measured directly without significantly altering > that which is being measured. I don't think that's a very good analogy. Some say Werner Heisenberg himself preferred to call his great idea the Principle of Tolerance rather than the Uncertainty Principle, at any rate it says that you can measure things and the results you get rise above the noise level and are meaningful, but there is a limit to the precision you can obtain and we can specify exactly what that tolerance is. Psi results never rise above the noise level. > I can't even ponder QM without getting completely mind boggled. I don't understand it, nor why god would be such a bastard as to set it up that way, assuming she had any choice in the matter. I don't think I could be accused of being an apologist for God but you may have been a little too hard on the old fellow. In general I think information is a good thing, but if the world worked by deterministic laws, such as Newtons, then the total amount of information in the universe would forever remain constant; if a particle went to B rather than A no new information was generated because you could have calculated before that it would do so, but with Quantum Mechanics you couldn't do that, so when the particle "decided" to go to B and not to A new information was born into the world. Most cosmologists think that at the time of the Big Bang the entropy of the universe was much lower than it is now, but it also contained much much less information. This may seem counter intuitive but remember that information should not be confused with meaning; a nonsense sentence contains more information than one written by Einstein because it would be harder to predict what the next part of it would be. Also, entropy is not a always a bad thing if used in moderation. Too much entropy and you have white noise and that's pretty dull, but too little entropy and you have an infinite perfect lattice and that's pretty dull too, our universe with all its richness and interesting complexity is somewhere between those two extremes. If not for quantum mechanics the universe would be as dull and information poor as that infinite perfect crystal. So you can't draw a direct connection between meaning and entropy as defined by Shannon's Information Theory, it can tell you how much information there is in an article for example but not how much meaning there is in it, for that you'd need what Hemingway called a ?built-in bullshit detector?; and so in my roundabout fashion I have returned to the topic of psi. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Oct 21 17:40:27 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:40:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal In-Reply-To: <4CC05D89.3000105@lightlink.com> References: <4CC05D89.3000105@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <4CC07B0B.2010502@satx.rr.com> On 10/21/2010 10:34 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote: > Keith Henson wrote: >> The meta question is why people are so attracted to this subject. >> The answer, of course, has roots in our evolutionary past, but the >> connection is not clear to me. and Richard made one obvious rejoinder: > ... and yet you (superstitiously?) cling to the belief that it does have > roots in our evolutionary past. > The next meta question is why people are so attracted to the idea that > everything has roots in our evolutionary past. > The answer, of course, has roots in computational cognitive psychology, > but the exact locus of the effect is not clear to me. but leaving aside the mutual (friendly and amusing) jibes, the other meta question is why people on the extropian list and other places where INTJ types congregate are so quick to dismiss and deride this subject, against the available evidence. A parapsychologist makes this point: His point about small individual effect size is crucial to understanding why psi doesn't make parapsychologists instantly wealthy, and he's right that in aggregate this small anomalous effect becomes highly visible. But it takes a lot of effort to gather this data and ensure that it's not contaminated, is appropriately analyzed, etc. So if Isabelle's claim to have found a fatal flaw in Bem is correct, let's hear it--*after* reading the existing protocol details in Bem's paper, and showing why they fail. Asserting that the result might be due to psychokinesis and not presentiment is uneconomical in this case, but plainly it just shifts the explanation from one "paranormal" realm to another. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Oct 21 17:48:53 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 12:48:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: <4CC069AB.1060609@gmail.com> References: <72167.40663.qm@web114417.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC0565E.1040904@lightlink.com> <4CC069AB.1060609@gmail.com> Message-ID: <4CC07D05.2020500@satx.rr.com> On 10/21/2010 11:26 AM, AlgaeNymph wrote: >> Actually, this is just factually incorrect. Me, personally, I have >> read dozens of papers that try to analyze how it works. They may not >> be good explanations, but they are attempts, at least. > Do you know of them, or where specifically I can find them? Well, you could always read my book OUTSIDE THE GATES OF SCIENCE. Brief accounts of some attempted explanations there, plus references to some relevant papers. I think there are two issues here: If psi phenomena exist, how do they work? (Is it a side effect of Hawking's many histories, say, or quantum entanglement, or 9th dimensional magic from the post-Singularity mind at the center of the galaxy?) If psi phenomena exist, what is their function in an evolved critter? This is easier to examine, because we can play the same Just So games as evolutionary theorists and even apply some algebra to the topic. One notion I suggest in the book is that psi might be used primarily during gestation, and later in parental bonding and protection, and the traces we see of it in later life are clumsy repurposed exaptations. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Oct 21 18:08:59 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:08:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: References: <72167.40663.qm@web114417.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC0565E.1040904@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <4CC081BB.3010505@satx.rr.com> On 10/21/2010 10:54 AM, Keith Henson wrote: >> > Actually, this is just factually incorrect. Me, personally, I have read >> > dozens of papers that try to analyze how it works. They may not be good >> > explanations, but they are attempts, at least. > I can't imagine reading one, much less dozens. By an amazing coincidence, that's exactly what all these fundamentalists in Texas say when told about papers analyzing how evolution works. Damien Broderick From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Oct 21 19:23:20 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:23:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology. In-Reply-To: <4CBF32AF.3070708@satx.rr.com> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <4CBF32AF.3070708@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <2A368E8C-C84D-4D2D-A3C3-8518E6EA15C0@bellsouth.net> On Oct 20, 2010, at 2:19 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > I haven't looked into this closely, but did any of those journals (or their 19 century equivalents) rush to publish Madame Sk?odowska?Curie's results? [...] Her paper, giving a brief and simple account of her work, was presented for her to the Acad?mie on 12 April 1898 I am unaware of any major problem, and if some of Madam Curie's papers were delayed by a few months it wasn't because of the nature of her science but prejudice regarding the nature of her gender. We do better nowadays. And looking back on it in 2010 it's a matter of little consequence, the science of nuclear physics has still advanced enormously in the last 112 years in spite of it, but the "science" of psi has not advanced a nanometer since April 12 1898 and the reason is that it is not a science, it is Bullshit. > Did investors plunge into schemes to use radioactivity for power? How to practically generate power from Curie's discovery was NOT obvious, how to generate money from Bem's "discovery" IS obvious; or it would be if were true. John K Clark > > by her former professor, Gabriel Lippmann.[19]> > > 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: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Oct 21 19:54:42 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 14:54:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology. In-Reply-To: <2A368E8C-C84D-4D2D-A3C3-8518E6EA15C0@bellsouth.net> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <4CBF32AF.3070708@satx.rr.com> <2A368E8C-C84D-4D2D-A3C3-8518E6EA15C0@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CC09A82.3010409@satx.rr.com> On 10/21/2010 2:23 PM, John Clark wrote: > how to generate money from Bem's "discovery" IS obvious; or it would be > if were true. How would you do that from Bem's research on retrospective priming over several seconds in controlled lab conditions? Please show your work for any credit at all. Handwaving will earn a Fail. Damien Broderick From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Oct 21 20:02:09 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 13:02:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal In-Reply-To: <4CC07B0B.2010502@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC05D89.3000105@lightlink.com> <4CC07B0B.2010502@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:40 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: snip > the other meta > question is why people on the extropian list and other places where INTJ > types congregate are so quick to dismiss and deride this subject, It may be hard not to dismiss the subject on evolutionary grounds. If, for example, animals (including humans) really had precognition, even in a weak form and it was based on physical brain structure expressed by genes, then it would have developed to a highly advanced form the way eyes did starting out as simple detectors of light and dark. Assuming, of course, that precognition was useful as a trait that helped the animals survive and reproduce. This analysis would not hold if precognition was not useful in the above sense or was not based on anything physical that was the result of genes. YMMV Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Oct 21 20:21:34 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:21:34 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal In-Reply-To: References: <4CC05D89.3000105@lightlink.com> <4CC07B0B.2010502@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CC0A0CE.1050603@satx.rr.com> On 10/21/2010 3:02 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > It may be hard not to dismiss the subject on evolutionary grounds. > > If, for example, animals (including humans) really had precognition, > even in a weak form and it was based on physical brain structure > expressed by genes, then it would have developed to a highly advanced > form the way eyes did starting out as simple detectors of light and > dark. Generalized musing of this kind has to yield in the face of accumulated empirical evidence. The rational approach is to start with the experimental evidence (which might itself be grounded in anecdotal claims that are far less robust) and then formulate models that are both consistent with the specific lab observations and consilient with other models that have been shown to work pretty well in adjacent domains. I can remember from the 1970s a brilliantly argued case proving beyond doubt that neutrinos *could NOT have mass.* Bad luck. Damien Broderick From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Oct 21 20:23:40 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:23:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology. In-Reply-To: <4CBF7B51.6080600@satx.rr.com> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <4CBF48C1.5090504@satx.rr.com> <4CBF7B51.6080600@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Oct 20, 2010, at 7:29 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Isabelle Hakala wrote: > >> I *did* read the paper, at least through the end of the first experiment, and honestly, unless they post the CODE for the program, there is no way to know if there is a cheat involved.... Since the program chooses the placement of the picture AFTER the person inputs where they feel it will be, that could be RIFE for cheating. > > Where does this hermeneutics of suspicion cease? Suppose I obtained the code for you, what would you do with it? I would try doing the experiment for myself using that code; if I had nothing better to do with my time that is, but I do, watching Sesame Street. > And if you examined it closely and found it acceptable, how would you know that some evil scientist hadn't just *pretended* to use that code while really just typing out 65 pages of invented results I would know who is telling the truth and who is lying (or is just incompetent) when lots of people who are known to have done good work in the past repeat the experiment and obtain similar data; and as this experiment is very cheap and easy to perform and the conclusions drawn from the results are claimed to be unambiguous this does not seem to me to be a onerous request in any way. > I'm serious. What would satisfy you? What *could* satisfy you in this instance? An article describing a repetition of the experiment and a confirmation of Bem's results published in Science, Nature or Physical Review Letters would satisfy me. Otherwise it's just some guy who typed some stuff. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Thu Oct 21 20:45:22 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:45:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Blog? Cool. Magazine? You're nuts. - Re: write for the diybio.org blog In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Russell Whitaker Date: Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 3:38 PM Subject: Blog? Cool. Magazine? You're nuts. - Re: write for the diybio.org blog To: diybio at googlegroups.com Cc: sacha at chemhacker.com, "J. S. John" , Sung won Lim <4phlebas at gmail.com>, Andrew Hessel , Jason Bobe , Cathal Garvey , Charlie Schick , Kim de Mora , contact at diybio.org On Wed, Oct 20, 2010 at 9:53 PM, Mackenzie Cowell wrote: > Hey Folks, > I am committed to writing one short article for the?diybio.org?blog next > week. ?Would any of you like to join me in that?commitment? > There's been a?resurgence?of interest in a diybio-focused?magazine, which I > think would rock. ?But I think there's a fairly long road from here to > there, and in the meantime I'd like to tap into the enthusiasm of potential > writers by lining up short posts for the?diybio.org?blog. > These could?blog posts could serve as short exploratory pieces that could > become bigger features for the future magazine. [SNIP] I am confident that you will make a small fortune in this enterprise, Mackenzie. What that will require is commitment, vast amounts of work, and a *large* fortune to kick it off. Not to rain on your parade, because your intentions are laudable, but ill informed by history. I suspect there are plenty of lurkers here who can pipe in with personal horror stories about their own magazine enterprise efforts, but the short of it is this: you are guaranteed to bleed money, lose friends, and alienate potential collaborators. Why on earth *anybody* would want to start a paper magazine given the trends in publishing the last couple of decades is, frankly, beyond me. I can put you in personal touch with friends in the industry - I have lots of them - who can tell you not to try. They're all scrambling to try to monetize their operations online. They work at Cond? Nast, the New York Times, and other prestige marques. I have been involved in amateur and professional press myself on occasion since my own teenage days, about 25 years, and so have some of the lurkers here, names some might recognize from *Wired*, *Boing Boing*, *Mondo2000*, *H+ Magazine*, *Extropy Magazine* (I was a founding editor) and others. I have personally spent days of my past life in London, Los Angeles and the SF Bay area pleading with bookshop owners to carry magazines on consignment, thinking it would eventually pay off: issues would fly off the shelves, distributors would pick up the publication, and on and on. Do _you_ really want to find yourself cruising the magazine section of your local B&N, hoping against hoping that the technically sophisticated urbanites wandering the aisles will notice your magazine, the one you maternally and helpful placed in front when the floor clerk thoughtlessly placed yours somewhere in the middle alongside the astrology and newage rags? Do you really want to live that life? If any of us had started in today's climate, we'd have never lived in that world. Instead, we'd have done what many of us have moved to: started blogs, aggressively promoted on the web, etc. Now, you _do_ have a sterling opportunity to apply the disciplines necessary to any news organization: doing a news _service_ and doing it right. If you're thinking of a blog merely as a means to an (obsolete) end, then you won't have the commitment and focus to do that one thing well. And it needs early, competent, committed execution, because your readership will judge you on it. Please know I think what you're proposing - and I did read the early draft of the brainstorm sheet you mention later in this thread - is generally a good idea, but only if you re-think what many of us can prove from experience is a very, very bad business ambition. Russell -- Russell Whitaker http://twitter.com/OrthoNormalRuss http://orthonormalruss.blogspot.com/ -- 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. -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Oct 21 21:03:52 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:03:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology. In-Reply-To: References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <4CBF48C1.5090504@satx.rr.com> <4CBF7B51.6080600@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CC0AAB8.1070007@satx.rr.com> On 10/21/2010 3:23 PM, John Clark wrote: > I would try doing the experiment for myself using that code Right, and that would be easy for you because you'd have at hand: "One hundred Cornell undergraduates, 50 women and 50 men... recruited... using the Psychology Department?s automated online sign-up system." And a lab suitable for running your computer trials. This is obviously doable, since Prof. Bem offers to make his code available. > An article describing a repetition of the experiment and a confirmation > of Bem's results published in Science, Nature or Physical Review Letters > would satisfy me. Otherwise it's just some guy who typed some stuff. The hilarious thing about this mantra of yours is that *you* are just some guy who typed some stuff, again and again. Now, we happen to know that you are a pretty sharp cookie, but you have offered zero experimental rebuttal of any of the evidence provided by Bem and others; indeed, you have refused to read that evidence. Until you do something more interesting than being some guy who typed some stuff, your impact (on this topic) should be entirely inconsequential. Damien Broderick From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Oct 21 21:26:50 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:26:50 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology. In-Reply-To: <4CC0AAB8.1070007@satx.rr.com> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <4CBF48C1.5090504@satx.rr.com> <4CBF7B51.6080600@satx.rr.com> <4CC0AAB8.1070007@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <82845F06-2A7B-4FAF-ABB7-92C6EF57AEE1@bellsouth.net> On Oct 21, 2010, at 5:03 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: Me: >> An article describing a repetition of the experiment and a confirmation >> of Bem's results published in Science, Nature or Physical Review Letters >> would satisfy me. Otherwise it's just some guy who typed some stuff. > > The hilarious thing about this mantra of yours is that *you* are just some guy who typed some stuff, again and again. As I've mentioned before, the difference between me and Bem is that he reported experimental results that you are supposed to believe while I have not. All I've done is make arguments and you have all the information you need to decide for yourself if my arguments are good or if I'm totally full of shit. If Bem's data is correct then he's made the most important discovery in a thousand years, but is it correct? I would need more information to believe he is, but deciding the credibility of the stuff I typed does not depend on missing data but on judging my logic. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Oct 21 22:48:23 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 17:48:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology. In-Reply-To: <82845F06-2A7B-4FAF-ABB7-92C6EF57AEE1@bellsouth.net> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <4CBF48C1.5090504@satx.rr.com> <4CBF7B51.6080600@satx.rr.com> <4CC0AAB8.1070007@satx.rr.com> <82845F06-2A7B-4FAF-ABB7-92C6EF57AEE1@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CC0C337.9020405@satx.rr.com> On 10/21/2010 4:26 PM, John Clark wrote: > All I've done is make arguments and you have all the information you > need to decide for yourself if my arguments are good or if I'm totally > full of shit. You might very well think that; I couldn't possibly comment--as Francis Urquhart would reply. Damien Broderick From bbenzai at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 22:46:31 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 15:46:31 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > > On 10/21/2010 4:51 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > > >> >? how would psi work? > > > Nobody talks about how it does it for the same reason > > nobody talks about how astrology works, or how > > touching wood prevents mishaps. > > That is, you claim it does not exist except as foolish > superstition. Why so down on foolish superstition? I'm all for it, if it *works*. My take on the whole thing isn't focused on whether there is some barely detectable evidence of some unexplained ability in certain people under certain elusive conditions, but rather on whether there's anything /useful/ there. And there is absolutely zero evidence for that. I recently saw a t-shirt with "Science: It works, bitches" written on it. I don't expect to see one with "Precognition" instead of "Science" anytime soon. Until psi starts giving real results in the real world, it's just not that interesting, and ranks with astrology, wood-touching and homoeopathy, for usefulness. Actually, you could claim that homoeopathy is more useful, because of the placebo effect. When someone can reliably levitate their tie-fighter out of a swamp, or find deposits of gold, or accurately predict next week's lottery numbers, using the power of their mind, then I'll sit up and take notice. Until then, psi-powers are in the same category as cold fusion, reactionless microwave thrusters, antigravity, zero-point energy, etc. Extraordinary claims, without even ordinary evidence. Ben Zaiboc From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Thu Oct 21 23:36:06 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 16:36:06 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology. In-Reply-To: <76602FBC-36CD-4DC3-85C9-6715EBEC49F4@bellsouth.net> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com><24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net><4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com><32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <76602FBC-36CD-4DC3-85C9-6715EBEC49F4@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <157157.62721.qm@web65615.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> >From: John Clark >To: ExI chat list >Sent: Thu, October 21, 2010 9:58:08 AM >Subject: Re: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social >Psychology. John Clark wrote: I don't think that's a very good analogy. Some say?Werner Heisenberg himself preferred to call his great idea the Principle of Tolerance rather than the Uncertainty Principle, at any rate it says that you can measure things and the results you get rise above the noise level and are meaningful, but there is a limit to the precision you can obtain and we can specify exactly what that tolerance is. Psi results never rise above the noise level. ? ----------------------- Perhaps that is the whole point of psi. To pick out signals imbedded in noise. Given enough noise, all the notes and timing of Beethoven's "Ode to Joy" are there, but it took a deaf composer to?hear them and commit them to paper.? >Most cosmologists think that at the time of the Big Bang the entropy of the >universe was much lower than it is now, but it also contained much much less >information. This may seem counter intuitive but remember that information >should not be confused with meaning; a nonsense sentence contains more >information than one written by Einstein because it would be harder to predict >what the next part of it would be. Also, entropy is not a always a bad thing if >used in moderation. Too much entropy and you have white noise and that's pretty >dull, but too little entropy and you have an infinite perfect lattice and that's > >pretty dull too, our universe with all its richness and interesting complexity >is somewhere between those two extremes. If not for quantum mechanics the >universe would be as dull and information poor as that infinite perfect >crystal.? I have often felt this sentiment with regard to life processes. All the enzymes, lipids, nucleic acids, water, and other constituents so delicately poised between the chaos of equilibrium and the stasis of a crystal. Too little order and you get death; too much order and you get death. Somewhere in between, the magic of life happens. > >So you can't draw a direct connection between meaning and entropy as defined by >Shannon's Information Theory, it can tell you how much information there is in >an article for example but not how much meaning there is in it, for that you'd >need what?Hemingway called a ?built-in bullshit detector?; and so in my >roundabout fashion I have returned to the topic of psi. Psi could indeed be related to the brains ability to derive semantics from the flow of Shannon information. You ever wondered how somebody like Helen Keller could have made any sense of the world at all, let alone become an author of her caliber? How mind arises from brain is so mysterious that there is plenty of room for psi in them thar hills. Maybe psi is what happens when nature evolves prediction machines meant to survive a universe that is, at the most fundamental levels, inherently and intractably unpredictable. ? Stuart LaForge ?To be normal is the ideal aim of the unsuccessful.? -Carl Jung From femmechakra at yahoo.ca Thu Oct 21 16:41:39 2010 From: femmechakra at yahoo.ca (Anna Taylor) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 09:41:39 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> --- On Thu, 10/21/10, Keith Henson wrote: > From: Keith Henson > The meta question is why people are so attracted to this > subject. > The answer, of course, has roots in our evolutionary past, > but the connection is not clear to me. I agree. I strongly believe in psi(not the terms and relentless gibberish that most associate with the term). It seems to me that everyone to a certain extent has the ability to perceive psi yet it occurs unexpectedly, randomly and/or without awareness that it becomes close to impossible to research. Most people I've discussed it with claim to have at least one psi phenomenon occurrence in their lifetime. I think in the future we will probably see more studies leaning towards the memory of genes in association with psi. (I can't explain why yet but still "feel" a link with the association..lol) What if psi phenomenon is built in mechanically as an evolutionary mechanism? I'm not really sure there will ever be proof of psi but I believe the subject to be an important one. We don't fully understand what the mind is capable of achieving. Imho, it is the relentless need and desire to go beyond the plain facts to discover something new about human beings that makes the subject so interesting. Some interesting reading: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070418104300.htm http://www.i-sis.org.uk/epigeneticInheritance.php Have a great day! From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 02:26:43 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:26:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal In-Reply-To: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I look forward to the day when genes for psi are found, and genetic engineers tweak the genome to the extent that we get to see individuals with abilities straight out of paranormal novels and comic books. Perhaps by cooperating with super-bright AI, human researchers will find the proof they crave, and then get to apply it. John On 10/21/10, Anna Taylor wrote: > --- On Thu, 10/21/10, Keith Henson wrote: >> From: Keith Henson > >> The meta question is why people are so attracted to this >> subject. > >> The answer, of course, has roots in our evolutionary past, >> but the connection is not clear to me. > > I agree. I strongly believe in psi(not the terms and relentless gibberish > that most associate with the term). It seems to me that everyone to a > certain extent has the ability to perceive psi yet it occurs unexpectedly, > randomly and/or without awareness that it becomes close to impossible to > research. Most people I've discussed it with claim to have at least one psi > phenomenon occurrence in their lifetime. I think in the future we will > probably see more studies leaning towards the memory of genes in association > with psi. (I can't explain why yet but still "feel" a link with the > association..lol) What if psi phenomenon is built in mechanically as an > evolutionary mechanism? I'm not really sure there will ever be proof of psi > but I believe the subject to be an important one. We don't fully understand > what the mind is capable of achieving. Imho, it is the relentless need and > desire to go beyond the plain facts to discover something new about human > beings > that makes the subject so interesting. > > Some interesting reading: > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070418104300.htm > http://www.i-sis.org.uk/epigeneticInheritance.php > > Have a great day! > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 02:32:53 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:32:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal In-Reply-To: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Remoting viewing showed just enough results for the military and intelligence community to keep funding the work for several decades. And I strongly suspect a 21st century version of "Project Stargate" is in operation somewhere, using designer drugs and cybernetics to refine the processes developed decades earlier. It's not in the intelligence community's interest to share their findings with you... lol John On 10/21/10, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > Damien Broderick wrote: > >> >> On 10/21/2010 4:51 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: >> >> >> >? how would psi work? >> >> > Nobody talks about how it does it for the same reason >> > nobody talks about how astrology works, or how >> > touching wood prevents mishaps. >> >> That is, you claim it does not exist except as foolish >> superstition. > > Why so down on foolish superstition? I'm all for it, if it *works*. > > My take on the whole thing isn't focused on whether there is some barely > detectable evidence of some unexplained ability in certain people under > certain elusive conditions, but rather on whether there's anything /useful/ > there. And there is absolutely zero evidence for that. > > I recently saw a t-shirt with "Science: It works, bitches" written on it. > I don't expect to see one with "Precognition" instead of "Science" anytime > soon. > > Until psi starts giving real results in the real world, it's just not that > interesting, and ranks with astrology, wood-touching and homoeopathy, for > usefulness. Actually, you could claim that homoeopathy is more useful, > because of the placebo effect. > > When someone can reliably levitate their tie-fighter out of a swamp, or find > deposits of gold, or accurately predict next week's lottery numbers, using > the power of their mind, then I'll sit up and take notice. Until then, > psi-powers are in the same category as cold fusion, reactionless microwave > thrusters, antigravity, zero-point energy, etc. Extraordinary claims, > without even ordinary evidence. > > Ben Zaiboc > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 02:29:57 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 19:29:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal In-Reply-To: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 9:41 AM, Anna Taylor wrote: > --- On Thu, 10/21/10, Keith Henson wrote: >> From: Keith Henson > >> The meta question is why people are so attracted to this >> subject. > >> The answer, of course, has roots in our evolutionary past, >> but the connection is not clear to me. > > I agree. I strongly believe in psi(not the terms and relentless gibberish that most associate with the term). It seems to me that everyone to a certain extent has the ability to perceive psi yet it occurs unexpectedly, randomly and/or without awareness that it becomes close to impossible to research. ?Most people I've discussed it with claim to have at least one psi phenomenon occurrence in their lifetime. I have had several. But is psi the only possible explanation? Trans cranial magnetic stimulation to the right area will give you the feeling you are in the presence of God. How many of these psi feelings are the result of a local misfiring of brain tissue? > I think in the future we will probably see more studies leaning towards the memory of genes in association with psi. (I can't explain why yet but still "feel" a link with the association..lol) What if psi phenomenon is built in mechanically as an evolutionary mechanism? ?I'm not really sure there will ever be proof of psi but I believe the subject to be an important one. ?We don't fully understand what the mind is capable of achieving. ?Imho, it is the relentless need and desire to go beyond the plain facts to discover something new about human beings ?that makes the subject so interesting. The meta question is why people feel strongly that psi exists when it is *so* marginal if it exists at all. Keith > Some interesting reading: > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/04/070418104300.htm > http://www.i-sis.org.uk/epigeneticInheritance.php > > Have a great day! > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Oct 22 03:30:14 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:30:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal In-Reply-To: References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CC10546.2010705@satx.rr.com> On 10/21/2010 9:29 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > The meta question is why people feel strongly that psi exists when it > is*so* marginal if it exists at all. A good point, and of course one's impulse is to suppose that it's a delusion continuous with the conviction that some deity saved the Chilean miners but didn't have anything to do with stranding them down in the bowels of the earth. I'm sure delusion/illusion/confirmation bias is often responsible for anecdotal reports, especially among people who seem to think their psychic gifts are "on" all the time: "I can make the traffic lights go green any time just by wishing it." "Really? Even though all the cross-traffic drivers are wishing equally hard for theirs to go green and yours to go red? Even though the lights are controlled by a reliable computer algorithm?" "Oh shut up, I just *know* it's true, you unspiritual oaf." But it's quite possible that striking psi events "in the wild" are *not* marginal, just selective. Guessing random numbers is far from any evolved competence in a natural environment, but getting a flash of a dying or injured relative (frequently reported) might be vectored strongly by the same function that is marginal in dull repetitive lab trials. A few such events in one's life could instil a heavy-duty sense of conviction. And we know from plenty of careful studies that people really *do* know who is calling them on the phone, even at random, far more often than mean chance expectation. That seems closer to the way an evolved competence could function in one's Weltbild. Damien Broderick From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Oct 22 03:31:01 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 23:31:01 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal. In-Reply-To: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5B60A8EF-12BC-41C8-B0B8-C7A8EB98B658@bellsouth.net> On Oct 21, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Anna Taylor wrote: > It seems to me that everyone to a certain extent has the ability to perceive psi yet it occurs unexpectedly, randomly and/or without awareness And by a curious coincidence that is exactly precisely how psi would manifest itself if the phenomena did not in fact exist. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 22 04:05:30 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 23:05:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal. In-Reply-To: <5B60A8EF-12BC-41C8-B0B8-C7A8EB98B658@bellsouth.net> References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <5B60A8EF-12BC-41C8-B0B8-C7A8EB98B658@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CC10D8A.8010408@satx.rr.com> On 10/21/2010 10:31 PM, John Clark wrote: >> It seems to me that everyone to a certain extent has the ability to >> perceive psi yet it occurs unexpectedly, randomly and/or without >> awareness > > And by a curious coincidence that is exactly precisely how psi would > manifest itself if the phenomena did not in fact exist. And by another curious coincidence that is exactly precisely how quantum-based radioactivity manifests itself. It might be retorted that quantum events are not *entirely* unexpected, although random on an individual basis, because they happen with a certain statistical frequency that can be determined by careful observation. So do psi events. Damien Broderick From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Oct 22 04:19:23 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:19:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal. In-Reply-To: <4CC10D8A.8010408@satx.rr.com> References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <5B60A8EF-12BC-41C8-B0B8-C7A8EB98B658@bellsouth.net> <4CC10D8A.8010408@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <605BC306-3D77-415F-BD6D-AA7C471E52F1@bellsouth.net> On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:05 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > It might be retorted that quantum events are not *entirely* unexpected, although random on an individual basis, because they happen with a certain statistical frequency that can be determined by careful observation. Yes, that has been experimentally observed. > So do psi events. But that has not been experimentally observed despite the heroic efforts of many for well over a century. Some have complained that nobody can explain how psi works, but that is the least of its problems; first there needs to be a demonstration that there is something that even deserves an explanation. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From agrimes at speakeasy.net Fri Oct 22 04:24:28 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:24:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Clarification of me and uploading. Message-ID: <4CC111FC.7040209@speakeasy.net> No, I don't think you are coming to upload me. Instead, you are creating a philosophy and culture which places extremely low value on the viewpoints of people who don't agree with uploading. If this culture is allowed to persist and develop through the singularity, it will compound the probability that greedy visual perceptrons will focus themselves on the Earth and go ahead and upload (or simply anihilate) everyone according to one of the many scenarios that has been presented to me over the years. =| My second issue is that other non-uploaders such as a person who responded to my thread on another mailing list feel repulsed by being "slammed" by the uploaders for expressing more modest transhumanistic goals. This is extremely detremental to the growth of transhumanism. Now I have a very specific mental defect that compels me to pursue transhumanism no matter what. People without my specific brain damage, will walk away. The median time for this is 2 weeks. -- A person will appear, sound excited, and then, within two weeks, you'll never hear from them again. What could be happening? Maybe they were just going through a manic week? Or could it be that they get in an argument with a gang of drooling uploaders and simply turn their backs on what could otherwise be a very promising movement! For transhumanism to become mainstream several things need to happen within the movement: 1. It must be accepted that computronium is not an end in itself. 2. It must be accepted that destructive brain uploading is NOT the *ONLY* way to expand your mind using computronium. It must also be accepted that destructive brain uploading is close to the worst ways of going about it. 3. Like the Yellow Brick Road in the Wizard of Oz, the road of transhumanism has many forks. The community should stand eager to support *ALL* remotely sane projects of self-transformation. (Instead a litmus test is given and all non-uploaders are rejected by the community). The only reason that we don't read about these other ideas every day is because the people with them are effectively expelled from the movement! (Admittedly, I could be miscategorizing some articles which otherwise appear as regular technology journalism). So there you have it. I'm upset because the uploaders are forcing all of transhumanism into a very tightly constrained narrative of the future while my own deviant ends require an entirely different narrative. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 22 04:56:42 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 23:56:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal. In-Reply-To: <605BC306-3D77-415F-BD6D-AA7C471E52F1@bellsouth.net> References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <5B60A8EF-12BC-41C8-B0B8-C7A8EB98B658@bellsouth.net> <4CC10D8A.8010408@satx.rr.com> <605BC306-3D77-415F-BD6D-AA7C471E52F1@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CC1198A.8070603@satx.rr.com> On 10/21/2010 11:19 PM, John Clark wrote: > But that has not been experimentally observed despite the heroic efforts > of many for well over a century. Read Bem's paper. From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 22 05:03:53 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:03:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal. In-Reply-To: <4CC1198A.8070603@satx.rr.com> References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <5B60A8EF-12BC-41C8-B0B8-C7A8EB98B658@bellsouth.net> <4CC10D8A.8010408@satx.rr.com> <605BC306-3D77-415F-BD6D-AA7C471E52F1@bellsouth.net> <4CC1198A.8070603@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CC11B39.9080302@satx.rr.com> On 10/21/2010 11:56 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 10/21/2010 11:19 PM, John Clark wrote: >> But that has not been experimentally observed despite the heroic efforts >> of many for well over a century. > Read Bem's paper. Let me put that more directly: Read Bem's paper and critique his methods or his findings; otherwise, just shut the hell up on this topic, of which you adamantly refuse to learn anything. Damien Broderick From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Oct 22 05:26:22 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:26:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal. In-Reply-To: <4CC1198A.8070603@satx.rr.com> References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <5B60A8EF-12BC-41C8-B0B8-C7A8EB98B658@bellsouth.net> <4CC10D8A.8010408@satx.rr.com> <605BC306-3D77-415F-BD6D-AA7C471E52F1@bellsouth.net> <4CC1198A.8070603@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <98CB02E5-E580-4ECA-95ED-68B57925C89D@bellsouth.net> On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:56 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: >> But that [psi] has not been experimentally observed despite the heroic efforts >> of many for well over a century. > > Read Bem's paper. Why? I can't imagine learning anything new from doing so, you've already summarized it well enough for me to conclude that the man knows how to type. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Oct 22 05:29:14 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 21 Oct 2010 22:29:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Clarification of me and uploading. In-Reply-To: <4CC111FC.7040209@speakeasy.net> References: <4CC111FC.7040209@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Alan Grimes ... > > 1. It must be accepted that computronium is not an end in itself... Clarify please. Do you mean you can imagine an endgame for the solar system that is something other than computronium swirling about the sun? What are the alternate endgames? > > 2. It must be accepted that destructive brain uploading is NOT the > *ONLY* way to expand your mind using computronium... OK. But do let me focus on endgames. > > 3. Like the Yellow Brick Road in the Wizard of Oz, the road > of transhumanism has many forks... OK. But do not they all lead to the same endgame? > > So there you have it. I'm upset because the uploaders are > forcing all of transhumanism into a very tightly constrained > narrative of the future while my own deviant ends require an > entirely different narrative... Do explain please? I will eagerly give you there are many forks and many possible paths. I would carry it even further: we have no adequate models to predict which of the wildly divergent paths humanity will take. But all these divergent paths are eventually wildly convergent: they all end up with computronium orbiting the sun. Ja? Nein? My outloading notion doesn't describe an endgame, but rather that computronium self-limits for some short time, perhaps a few thousand or tens of thousands of years, keeping earth as a wildlife refuge. Eventually, in that scenario, everything in the solar system still ends up as computronium. Alternatives? spike From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Oct 22 05:35:24 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:35:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal. In-Reply-To: <4CC11B39.9080302@satx.rr.com> References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <5B60A8EF-12BC-41C8-B0B8-C7A8EB98B658@bellsouth.net> <4CC10D8A.8010408@satx.rr.com> <605BC306-3D77-415F-BD6D-AA7C471E52F1@bellsouth.net> <4CC1198A.8070603@satx.rr.com> <4CC11B39.9080302@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Oct 22, 2010, at 1:03 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Let me put that more directly: > Read Bem's paper and critique his methods or his findings; Bem is an unknown person and his work was refereed by more unknowns, so If I read Bem's paper I will not know the methods or findings of his experiment, I won't even know if there was an experiment, all I'll know is that he typed some stuff. > just shut the hell up on this topic No. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 22 06:10:28 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:10:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal. In-Reply-To: <98CB02E5-E580-4ECA-95ED-68B57925C89D@bellsouth.net> References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <5B60A8EF-12BC-41C8-B0B8-C7A8EB98B658@bellsouth.net> <4CC10D8A.8010408@satx.rr.com> <605BC306-3D77-415F-BD6D-AA7C471E52F1@bellsouth.net> <4CC1198A.8070603@satx.rr.com> <98CB02E5-E580-4ECA-95ED-68B57925C89D@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CC12AD4.1020305@satx.rr.com> On 10/22/2010 12:26 AM, John Clark wrote: >> Read Bem's paper. > Why? I can't imagine learning anything new from doing so Exactly, so your opinion on the topic is worthless. Why am I "so touchy (defensive)" as Isabelle puts it? For the same reason most people on this forum would be, I expect, if we were treated to similar know-nothing blather from a "creation scientist." I realize that most list readers probably won't see it that way, because they also "know" in advance that the topic, rather than the Shove-your-telescope response, is preposterous BULLSHIT. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 22 06:20:40 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 01:20:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal. In-Reply-To: References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <5B60A8EF-12BC-41C8-B0B8-C7A8EB98B658@bellsouth.net> <4CC10D8A.8010408@satx.rr.com> <605BC306-3D77-415F-BD6D-AA7C471E52F1@bellsouth.net> <4CC1198A.8070603@satx.rr.com> <4CC11B39.9080302@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CC12D38.1090204@satx.rr.com> On 10/22/2010 12:35 AM, John Clark wrote: > Bem is an unknown person No, John, *you* are an unknown person (by this metric). Dr. Daryl J. Bem is professor emeritus of psychology at Cornell University, and has taught at Carnegie-Mellon University, Stanford, Harvard, and Cornell. Now you'll accuse me of arguing from authority. Damien Broderick From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Oct 22 06:25:53 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:25:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal. In-Reply-To: References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <40846EC1-A04A-4DD3-8AF4-A7DE32AC8C28@bellsouth.net> On Oct 21, 2010, at 10:29 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > The meta question is why people feel strongly that psi exists when it > is *so* marginal if it exists at all. I think its the same reason people get angry when their religious faith is questioned, some just find it very unpleasant to be in a state of doubt, and anger is less unpleasant than unhappiness so a substitution is made. However my theory could be completely wrong, but that's OK, I don't mind uncertainty. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Oct 22 06:30:16 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:30:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal. In-Reply-To: <4CC12D38.1090204@satx.rr.com> References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <5B60A8EF-12BC-41C8-B0B8-C7A8EB98B658@bellsouth.net> <4CC10D8A.8010408@satx.rr.com> <605BC306-3D77-415F-BD6D-AA7C471E52F1@bellsouth.net> <4CC1198A.8070603@satx.rr.com> <4CC11B39.9080302@satx.rr.com> <4CC12D38.1090204@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Oct 22, 2010, at 2:20 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: >> Bem is an unknown person > > No, John, *you* are an unknown person (by this metric). I don't need to be known, I have not presented experimental results that people are supposed to believe. And I'm going to bed. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at alice.it Fri Oct 22 07:21:43 2010 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:21:43 +0200 Subject: [ExI] papers on logic In-Reply-To: References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <5B60A8EF-12BC-41C8-B0B8-C7A8EB98B658@bellsouth.net> <4CC10D8A.8010408@satx.rr.com> <605BC306-3D77-415F-BD6D-AA7C471E52F1@bellsouth.net> <4CC1198A.8070603@satx.rr.com><4CC11B39.9080302@satx.rr.com><4CC12D38.1090204@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7B29BC20EFD24D3BA5D18730323D6431@PCserafino> downloadable interesting papers here http://www.springerlink.com/content/120443/?Content+Status=Accepted From pharos at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 08:03:28 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:03:28 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal In-Reply-To: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > My take on the whole thing isn't focused on whether there is some barely > detectable evidence of some unexplained ability in certain people under > certain elusive conditions, but rather on whether there's anything /useful/ there. > ?And there is absolutely zero evidence for that. > > Until psi starts giving real results in the real world, it's just not that interesting, > and ranks with astrology, wood-touching and homoeopathy, for usefulness. >?Actually, you could claim that homoeopathy is more useful, because of the > placebo effect. > > That's pretty much my outlook as well. Show me the money! I read hundreds of articles on Physorg about weird stuff being worked on in labs, effects in colliders, string theory discussions, etc. etc. Most of them just get filed in the box 'Interesting - maybe it will come to something'. Much of it will never be heard of again, but some items will develop into, say, new spintronics computers. Hurrah! So psi research reports also get filed in that box. But so far, after many, many years of 'interesting' research, none of of the psi items have emerged, blinking, into the daylight as a wonderful new product. Maybe they will - one day. But until then they remain filed. 'Interesting', but filed. BillK From giulio at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 06:16:03 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:16:03 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal. In-Reply-To: <4CC12AD4.1020305@satx.rr.com> References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <5B60A8EF-12BC-41C8-B0B8-C7A8EB98B658@bellsouth.net> <4CC10D8A.8010408@satx.rr.com> <605BC306-3D77-415F-BD6D-AA7C471E52F1@bellsouth.net> <4CC1198A.8070603@satx.rr.com> <98CB02E5-E580-4ECA-95ED-68B57925C89D@bellsouth.net> <4CC12AD4.1020305@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: This is a science topic, not a holy war. If psi exists, sooner or later science will explain it. -- Giulio Prisco giulio at gmail.com (39)3387219799 On Oct 22, 2010 8:11 AM, "Damien Broderick" wrote: On 10/22/2010 12:26 AM, John Clark wrote: >> Read Bem's paper. > Why? I can't imagine learning an... Exactly, so your opinion on the topic is worthless. Why am I "so touchy (defensive)" as Isabelle puts it? For the same reason most people on this forum would be, I expect, if we were treated to similar know-nothing blather from a "creation scientist." I realize that most list readers probably won't see it that way, because they also "know" in advance that the topic, rather than the Shove-your-telescope response, is preposterous BULLSHIT. Damien Broderick _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extrop... -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 07:32:54 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 00:32:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Clarification of me and uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC111FC.7040209@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 10:29 PM, spike wrote: > > ...On Behalf Of Alan Grimes > ... > > > > 1. It must be accepted that computronium is not an end in itself... > > Clarify please. Do you mean you can imagine an endgame for the solar > system > that is something other than computronium swirling about the sun? What are > the alternate endgames? > Consider the mass ratio of a computer to the power plant (not battery or other energy storage, but energy generation) that powers it. Might it not be the case that, even if optimum computronium becomes available, the majority of the mass might need to be devoted to energy harvesting - as in a classic Dyson sphere? Further, mass is needed to interact with the world. A computer, by itself with no connection to robot limbs or other mechanical controls, can not actually do anything. (The most common connection is via delivering instructions to a human being - but it's still the human that actually does something.) Computronium left to swirl about the sun is, for example, unable to make more computronium, or recover if an unforeseen comet perturbs its orbit and sends it into the sun. Some amount of computronium is desirable, of course. But if only that remains, then the computronium may as well be broken and inert as far as anything outside of it is concerned. > > > > 2. It must be accepted that destructive brain uploading is NOT the > > *ONLY* way to expand your mind using computronium... > > OK. But do let me focus on endgames. > If you focus on the endgame, without a coherent path to get there, the endgame you will almost certainly wind up with is not the one which you imagine. Unlike the Singularity itself, this has happened before, therefore it can be predicted as likely to happen again. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 09:46:25 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:46:25 +0100 (BST) Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <917706.62983.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> John Grigg wrote: > > Remoting viewing showed just enough results for the > military and > intelligence community to keep funding the work for > several decades. > And I strongly suspect a 21st century version of > "Project Stargate" is > in operation somewhere, using designer drugs and > cybernetics to refine > the processes developed decades earlier. > > It's not in the intelligence community's interest to > share their > findings with you... lol I'm sure you're right. It occurs to me, though, that if any govt. anywhere was successfully employing paranormal abilities with any degree of success, they would be having uncanny success in military operations, etc. Sure, you'd try to hide it if you were able to do such things, but in the end, if you have an ability and are not able to use it for fear of people finding out, you might as well not have it. You'd see a rapid shift in the balance of power globally if any govt. discovered any useful psi abilities. The alternative would be that they all have them, and there is a massive global conspiracy to keep it quiet. I think Occam can quickly dispose of that idea. Ben Zaiboc From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 09:39:12 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 02:39:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal. In-Reply-To: References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <5B60A8EF-12BC-41C8-B0B8-C7A8EB98B658@bellsouth.net> <4CC10D8A.8010408@satx.rr.com> <605BC306-3D77-415F-BD6D-AA7C471E52F1@bellsouth.net> <4CC1198A.8070603@satx.rr.com> <98CB02E5-E580-4ECA-95ED-68B57925C89D@bellsouth.net> <4CC12AD4.1020305@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Giulio wrote: >This is a science topic, not a holy war. If psi exists, sooner or later science will ?>explain it. Giulio, since you did mention holy war, I will say that the only way to settle this argument between Damien and John is through trial by combat! ; ) But though Damien may look the fragile academic, his Aussie ancestry is that of killers, rebels, and general troublemakers, and so John had better watch out! lol But seriously, to me (and I believe most people) it is a matter of "basic courtesy" to read a paper that is the core focus of a discussion thread argument. John, you are being rude to Damien, and just plain obstinate in general by not reading the document. And I think in a dysfunctional way you enjoy the negative attention! Sheesh!!! The two of you should be forced to share a small apartment for a month, as part of a reality television program... John On 10/21/10, Giulio Prisco wrote: > This is a science topic, not a holy war. If psi exists, sooner or later > science will explain it. > > -- > Giulio Prisco > giulio at gmail.com > (39)3387219799 > > On Oct 22, 2010 8:11 AM, "Damien Broderick" wrote: > > On 10/22/2010 12:26 AM, John Clark wrote: >> Read Bem's paper. > Why? I > can't imagine learning an... > Exactly, so your opinion on the topic is worthless. > > Why am I "so touchy (defensive)" as Isabelle puts it? For the same reason > most people on this forum would be, I expect, if we were treated to similar > know-nothing blather from a "creation scientist." I realize that most list > readers probably won't see it that way, because they also "know" in advance > that the topic, rather than the Shove-your-telescope response, is > preposterous BULLSHIT. > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extrop... > From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 11:02:53 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 04:02:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology In-Reply-To: <4CC081BB.3010505@satx.rr.com> References: <72167.40663.qm@web114417.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC0565E.1040904@lightlink.com> <4CC081BB.3010505@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:08 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 10/21/2010 10:54 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > >>> > ?Actually, this is just factually incorrect. ?Me, personally, I have >>> > read >>> > ?dozens of papers that try to analyze how it works. ?They may not be >>> > good >>> > ?explanations, but they are attempts, at least. > >> I can't imagine reading one, much less dozens. > > By an amazing coincidence, that's exactly what all these fundamentalists in > Texas say when told about papers analyzing how evolution works. A friend of mine read the book of Oahspe cover to cover. That may be worst than reading dozens of papers on psi. Here is a random sample http://www.sacred-texts.com/oah/oah/oah13.htm Incidentally, we see the results of evolution all around us. Psi is a lot harder to see. The fact that gambling establishments are profitable indicates it is uncommon/weak/unreliable if it exists at all. Keith From agrimes at speakeasy.net Fri Oct 22 12:46:14 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:46:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Clarification of me and uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC111FC.7040209@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4CC18796.8090100@speakeasy.net> chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: [I hate my browser, I hate my browser, I hate my browser.] > Further, mass is needed to interact with the world. A computer, by > itself with no connection to robot limbs or other mechanical controls, > can not actually do anything. His idea is that by reducing the ENTIRE UNIVERSE to computronium, actual physical interactions would become obsolete. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From agrimes at speakeasy.net Fri Oct 22 12:42:53 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:42:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Clarification of me and uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC111FC.7040209@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4CC186CD.30903@speakeasy.net> chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: >> ...On Behalf Of Alan Grimes > ... >> 1. It must be accepted that computronium is not an end in itself... > Clarify please. Do you mean you can imagine an endgame for the solar system > that is something other than computronium swirling about the sun? What are > the alternate endgames? .... > I will eagerly give you there are many forks and many possible paths. I > would carry it even further: we have no adequate models to predict which of > the wildly divergent paths humanity will take. Fallacy: There's no such thing as humanity. > But all these divergent > paths are eventually wildly convergent: they all end up with computronium > orbiting the sun. Ja? Nein? I don't mind you building computronium all over the universe as long as you do it in an ecologically balanced way. A moon here, an astaroid there, a nebula or two, A handful of gas giants, Perhaps a supermassive star or a black hole or two. You will still have more computronium than a human brain can possibly comprehend but still there will be vast tracts of universe left for others to use as their playground. > My outloading notion doesn't describe an endgame, but rather that > computronium self-limits for some short time, perhaps a few thousand or tens > of thousands of years, keeping earth as a wildlife refuge. Eventually, in > that scenario, everything in the solar system still ends up as computronium. I must have missed the post where you described "outloading". It is not commonly used in the community. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From agrimes at speakeasy.net Fri Oct 22 13:21:57 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:21:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Observation: Message-ID: <4CC18FF5.1030809@speakeasy.net> I have two observations: # People are quick to accuse me of being delusional about uploaders ruling transhumanism and plotting to take over the world. # People completely ignore Spike and Ben Z. who are basically confirming everything I've claimed. -- And nobody, publicly at least, is willing to call them out on it. Based on this dichotomy, I claim that I'm right about the uploaders ruling transhumanism. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From rpwl at lightlink.com Fri Oct 22 14:42:18 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:42:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> BillK wrote: > On Thu, Oct 21, 2010 at 11:46 PM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: >> My take on the whole thing isn't focused on whether there is some barely >> detectable evidence of some unexplained ability in certain people under >> certain elusive conditions, but rather on whether there's anything /useful/ there. >> And there is absolutely zero evidence for that. >> >> Until psi starts giving real results in the real world, it's just not that interesting, >> and ranks with astrology, wood-touching and homoeopathy, for usefulness. >> Actually, you could claim that homoeopathy is more useful, because of the >> placebo effect. >> >> > > > That's pretty much my outlook as well. > Show me the money! > > I read hundreds of articles on Physorg about weird stuff being worked > on in labs, effects in colliders, string theory discussions, etc. etc. > Most of them just get filed in the box 'Interesting - maybe it will > come to something'. Much of it will never be heard of again, but some > items will develop into, say, new spintronics computers. Hurrah! > > So psi research reports also get filed in that box. > > But so far, after many, many years of 'interesting' research, none of > of the psi items have emerged, blinking, into the daylight as a > wonderful new product. > Maybe they will - one day. But until then they remain filed. > 'Interesting', but filed. That position is pretty close to mine, if you put it that way. However, Ben Zaiboc did NOT put it that way. He added one more thing. He said that those "hundreds of articles on Physorg about weird stuff being worked on in labs, effects in colliders, string theory discussions, etc. etc." (as you put it) are to be ranked alongside "astrology, wood-touching and homoeopathy, for usefulness". That is actually an attempt to smear by association. I would not for one moment make any kind of comparison between those exotic physics papers and "astrology, wood-touching and homoeopathy". I mean, sure, some of those papers *might* end up being no more useful than that, but that is not the point. The point is the attempt to smear the topic by classifying it alongside trash. Richard Loosemore From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 14:21:09 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:21:09 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] papers on logic In-Reply-To: <7B29BC20EFD24D3BA5D18730323D6431@PCserafino> References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <5B60A8EF-12BC-41C8-B0B8-C7A8EB98B658@bellsouth.net> <4CC10D8A.8010408@satx.rr.com> <605BC306-3D77-415F-BD6D-AA7C471E52F1@bellsouth.net> <4CC1198A.8070603@satx.rr.com><4CC11B39.9080302@satx.rr.com><4CC12D38.1090204@satx.rr.com> <7B29BC20EFD24D3BA5D18730323D6431@PCserafino> Message-ID: <302394.94420.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Thanks for sending this! I've been studying non-classical logics for the last several years. Though these papers seem tangential to that, they should still be interesting. Regards, Dan From: scerir To: ExI chat list Sent: Fri, October 22, 2010 3:21:43 AM Subject: [ExI] papers on logic downloadable interesting papers here http://www.springerlink.com/content/120443/?Content+Status=Accepted _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Oct 22 15:08:58 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:08:58 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal In-Reply-To: <917706.62983.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <917706.62983.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CC1A90A.8020900@satx.rr.com> On 10/22/2010 4:46 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > It occurs to me, though, that if any govt. anywhere > was successfully employing paranormal abilities with > any degree of success, they would be having uncanny > success in military operations, etc. This applies equally to any successful spying operation conducted by advanced traditional means, monitoring cell phone traffic etc. Does this mean no such intelligence operations ever happen, or just that they never lead to uncanny success? Looking on results from the outside, how would you disentangle successes due to "normal" means from any due to "paranormal" means? It's possible that the various declassified successes of Star Gate were actually due to conventional spying by local agents or to advanced satellite surveillance, etc, and that the military carefully leaked rumors that psi dunnit to muddy the waters and confuse the foe. It's known that at least some highly secret military plane and rocket flights were masked by fake UFO reports, which allowed sensible journalists and others to guffaw and turn their minds to other topics. It could be that way with military "psi programs". But that doesn't explain all the anomalies like Bem's experiments or my own with Lotto (unless we are all part of the Evil Government Conspiracy to Cloud Your Minds). Damien Broderick From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 14:46:40 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 07:46:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Observation: In-Reply-To: <4CC18FF5.1030809@speakeasy.net> References: <4CC18FF5.1030809@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/22 Alan Grimes : > I have two observations: > > # People are quick to accuse me of being delusional about uploaders > ruling transhumanism Transhumanists are like cats. Lots of luck for anyone trying to rule them. > and plotting to take over the world. Plotting normally is a secret activity. The people who are into computronium and uploading are quite open about it. Further, they seem to think it's just the path that will be taken, like water running down hill, rather than having a lot of choice in the matter. > # People completely ignore Spike and Ben Z. who are basically confirming > everything I've claimed. -- And nobody, publicly at least, is willing to > call them out on it. Nobody seems to pay much attention to the model where you can go both ways, all the way to disembodied upload in a VR and clear back to a normal human brain in a normal human body. > Based on this dichotomy, I claim that I'm right about the uploaders > ruling transhumanism. See above, but so what if it is true? It's not like transhumanists have noticeable influence on the world at large. Keith From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Oct 22 15:02:53 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:02:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal. In-Reply-To: References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <5B60A8EF-12BC-41C8-B0B8-C7A8EB98B658@bellsouth.net> <4CC10D8A.8010408@satx.rr.com> <605BC306-3D77-415F-BD6D-AA7C471E52F1@bellsouth.net> <4CC1198A.8070603@satx.rr.com> <98CB02E5-E580-4ECA-95ED-68B57925C89D@bellsouth.net> <4CC12AD4.1020305@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <47EF1652-7A2F-4BC1-8042-F5B982F5AAD9@bellsouth.net> On Oct 22, 2010, at 5:39 AM, John Grigg wrote: > John, you are being rude to Damien Yes, my rudeness stands in stark contrast to Damien's politeness and courtesy. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 22 15:24:30 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:24:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal In-Reply-To: <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> On 10/22/2010 9:42 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote: >> But so far, after many, many years of 'interesting' research, none of >> of the psi items have emerged, blinking, into the daylight as a >> wonderful new product. >> Maybe they will - one day. But until then they remain filed. >> 'Interesting', but filed. > That position is pretty close to mine, if you put it that way. Mine also, in a way. But then billions of dollars are being invested in the LHC and various deep space telescopes, the results of which seem unlikely to yield a Mall-full of wonderful new product any day soon. The value of finding out what's behind the anomalous results lumped together as "psi" isn't that we might get a garage door that opens when you make a wish, but that scientific insight into the structure of the universe will become deepened and more clarified. Knowing that events at t1 can be influenced by events at t1+n (as Bem and others have demonstrated) is a genuine contribution to human knowledge, whether or not the Amazing Mandrake can saunter into a casino and break the bank. Damien Broderick From scerir at alice.it Fri Oct 22 15:14:22 2010 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:14:22 +0200 Subject: [ExI] papers on logic In-Reply-To: <302394.94420.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><5B60A8EF-12BC-41C8-B0B8-C7A8EB98B658@bellsouth.net><4CC10D8A.8010408@satx.rr.com><605BC306-3D77-415F-BD6D-AA7C471E52F1@bellsouth.net><4CC1198A.8070603@satx.rr.com><4CC11B39.9080302@satx.rr.com><4CC12D38.1090204@satx.rr.com><7B29BC20EFD24D3BA5D18730323D6431@PCserafino> <302394.94420.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi Dan, Many years ago I was interested in that sort of fuzzy logic they use in law and in politics. Not sure there is a difference between law and politics though ;-) > Thanks for sending this! I've been studying non-classical logics for the last > several years. Though these papers seem tangential to that, they should still be > interesting. > Regards, > Dan From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Oct 22 15:21:42 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:21:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal. In-Reply-To: References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <5B60A8EF-12BC-41C8-B0B8-C7A8EB98B658@bellsouth.net> <4CC10D8A.8010408@satx.rr.com> <605BC306-3D77-415F-BD6D-AA7C471E52F1@bellsouth.net> <4CC1198A.8070603@satx.rr.com> <98CB02E5-E580-4ECA-95ED-68B57925C89D@bellsouth.net> <4CC12AD4.1020305@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <10B383FF-8212-40E3-AC40-0B20815940D0@bellsouth.net> On Oct 22, 2010, at 2:16 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > This is a science topic, not a holy war. If psi exists, sooner or later science will explain it. > And the corollary is that if psi does not exist then science will never explain it; in fact it will not be a scientific topic at all and there would be nothing to explain. But if psi does not exist there will never come a time when psi advocates admit defeat and recommend moving on to other things, even after centuries of finding nothing they keep saying scientists are prejudiced or just aren't trying hard enough and we need one more study. The jury will ALWAYS be out in the matter of psi, I think even the most staunch defenders of psi know this, hence the decision not to accept my bet. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Oct 22 16:09:45 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:09:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Clarification of me and uploading. In-Reply-To: <4CC18796.8090100@speakeasy.net> References: <4CC111FC.7040209@speakeasy.net> <4CC18796.8090100@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <732C312F94194812AC1FA152F5F6202F@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Alan Grimes > Subject: Re: [ExI] Clarification of me and uploading. > > [I hate my browser]^3 [Sorry to hear]^3 > > > Further, mass is needed to interact with the world. A computer, by > > itself with no connection to robot limbs or other > > mechanical controls, can not actually do anything... Cool, progress! {8-] Granted, but I am not proposing a system without robot limbs. Read on. > His idea is that by reducing the ENTIRE UNIVERSE to > computronium, actual physical interactions would become obsolete... Partly right. I think of it as *increasing* the entire universe to computronium, with physical interactions greatly reduced, but not completely obsolete. Read on, sir. > -- > DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. > DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. > Powers are not rights. Indeed! Another topic for another time. {8-] Adrian wrote: >Consider the mass ratio of a computer to the power plant (not battery or other energy storage, but energy generation) that powers it. Might it not be the case that, even if optimum computronium becomes available, the majority of the mass might need to be devoted to energy harvesting - as in a classic Dyson sphere? An excellent set of question are raised by this comment. What is the mass ratio? How would one estimate it? Here's how I would go about it. Think of a current technology solar cell and a current technology microprocessor such as the one used in a phone. We know a battery with mass of about 20 grams holds a charge to run that processor for about 4 days, so I would reason that at steady state with those energy densities, a solar cell in constant full sun of area about 5 cm^2 can run that processor at stead state. So could we make or imagine a computronium node with about 5 cm^2 of solar cell, with the processor and memory on that back of that, along with perhaps some limbs, a few hundred or so? So it would be bigger than an american quarter dollar but not a lot bigger. I have imagined a computronium node as a disk by the following process: start out imagining a sphere. Surface area available for gathering sunlight is pi*r^2 (not 2*pi*r^2 because we need to take into account the angle of incident sunlight), and the volume as 4/3*pi*r^3. The surface available on a disk for gathering sunlight is pi*r^2, and its volume is pi*r^2*t where t is the thickness. Model the limbs however you wish, but I have their collective mass as a nearly negligible mass with respect to the coin-sized node. The disk shape makes better use of the mass. So now, you guys who are up to speed on low-power use processors, how much calculation can be done with a cell-phone class processor? More later; apparently it is time to be a parent. spike From pharos at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 15:37:11 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:37:11 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal In-Reply-To: <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 4:24 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Mine also, in a way. But then billions of dollars are being invested in the > LHC and various deep space telescopes, the results of which seem unlikely to > yield a Mall-full of wonderful new product any day soon. The value of > finding out what's behind the anomalous results lumped together as "psi" > isn't that we might get a garage door that opens when you make a wish, but > that scientific insight into the structure of the universe will become > deepened and more clarified. Knowing that events at t1 can be influenced by > events at t1+n (as Bem and others have demonstrated) is a genuine > contribution to human knowledge, whether or not the Amazing Mandrake can > saunter into a casino and break the bank. > > That's probably a lot to do with why scientists are not interested in psi. On the one hand - billion dollar machines going where no one has gone before, Nobels in sight, or at least a career as a famous researcher. On the other hand - psychology stuff, which is basically people chatting. No comparison. BillK From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Oct 22 16:20:40 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:20:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Clarification of me and uploading. In-Reply-To: <4CC111FC.7040209@speakeasy.net> References: <4CC111FC.7040209@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <00198930-B8E2-4B16-8E71-9524CF8D4548@bellsouth.net> On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:24 AM, Alan Grimes wrote: > No, I don't think you are coming to upload me. I'm glad to hear it. > Instead, you are creating a philosophy and culture which places > extremely low value on the viewpoints of people who don't agree with > uploading. Hey I'm a libertarian, if you don't want to get uploaded then I don't think you should get uploaded. Do I personally have a low opinion of the reasons offered against uploading? Yes. Am I certain that a Jupiter Brain will have the same libertarian view I do regarding meat human beings? No. > If this culture is allowed to persist and develop through the > singularity What social norms will persist and develop through the singularity is not predictable, that's why it's called a singularity. > it will compound the probability that greedy visual perceptrons will focus themselves on the Earth and go ahead and upload (or simply anihilate) everyone But if you put a gun to my head and made me predict, I'd say that the above is likely to happen regardless of the culture that exists at the moment. > My second issue is that other non-uploaders such as a person who > responded to my thread on another mailing list feel repulsed by being > "slammed" by the uploaders for expressing more modest transhumanistic goals. So what? You don't have a constitutional right never to be offended. > For transhumanism to become mainstream several things need to happen within the movement: > 1. It must be accepted By Who? > that computronium is not an end in itself. The computronium may not agree, indeed most living things think a continuation of existence is an end in itself; and the will to power does seem to be a real phenomena for all evolutionarily successful beings. > It must also be accepted that destructive brain uploading is close to the worst ways of > going about it. I've been hearing that statement for years, and without exception when stripped of their pseudoscientific veneer every single one of the arguments supporting that view turns into nothing but pure superstition. > Instead a litmus test is given and all non-uploaders are rejected by the community I like litmus tests, they made a valuable contribution to chemistry; and I can't speak for the transhuman community but whenever I hear somebody trot out tired old lame reasons to be terrified of destructive uploading I realize the person in question is not willing to push logic as far as it will go and see where you end up. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Oct 22 16:37:20 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 09:37:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Observation: In-Reply-To: <4CC18FF5.1030809@speakeasy.net> References: <4CC18FF5.1030809@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <1CAC0E4CAF1B4A5E8B7C1EBE342489C5@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Alan Grimes > Subject: [ExI] Observation: > > I have two observations: > > # People are quick to accuse me of being delusional about > uploaders ruling transhumanism and plotting to take over the world... Well, that's a bit strong. I haven't seen the accusation that you are delusional, but rather that you have a greater certainty in a speculation than is justifiable. I have seen enough of your posts to think you are sane and reasonable. So now I have a request. Read on sir. > # People completely ignore Spike and Ben Z. who are basically > confirming everything I've claimed. -- And nobody, publicly > at least, is willing to call them out on it... I would call me out on it, if that were my position. I am an agnostic on the notion of forced uploading: we don't know how that will work, and cannot know, until we have some kind of model on which to base that prediction. We have nada, as far as I know, so I claim we can only guess how uploaders will behave. Alan, if it is any comfort, I have seen plenty of true believers in opposition to your position, who are also claiming plenty of unjustifiable certainty. How do they know? > Based on this dichotomy, I claim that I'm right about the > uploaders ruling transhumanism. Your claim is noted, but the line of reasoning is a tenuous indeed. Alan you may be right, but you will need more than this. For instance, do you base the notion of uploading on the behavior of every non-human lifeform we know of on earth, which maximizes its own numbers unconsciously? Or on human behavior, which sometimes breeds itself to maximum by instinct, but at other times self-consciously limits its own population? I am an agnostic on the topic of uploader's behavior, but I can be converted to be a true believer. I am eager to be a true believer. But you need to give me something on which to base it. Show your work. {8-] spike From atymes at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 15:54:03 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 08:54:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Clarification of me and uploading. In-Reply-To: <4CC18796.8090100@speakeasy.net> References: <4CC111FC.7040209@speakeasy.net> <4CC18796.8090100@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/22 Alan Grimes > > Further, mass is needed to interact with the world. A computer, by > > itself with no connection to robot limbs or other mechanical controls, > > can not actually do anything. > > His idea is that by reducing the ENTIRE UNIVERSE to computronium, actual > physical interactions would become obsolete. > That's more than "swirling about the sun" - i.e., just the solar system. Problem is, the entire universe is large - and unknown - enough that it does not serve as a viable endgame. Do the solar system? There's the rest of the galaxy. Do the galaxy? Local cluster. Skip a step and do the entire local supercluster? There's more. Physical interaction will continue to be needed for a long, possibly indefinite, time. Therefore, reducing everything to noninteractive computronium is a nonstarter. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rpwl at lightlink.com Fri Oct 22 17:09:59 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:09:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> BillK wrote: [snip] > That's probably a lot to do with why scientists are not interested in psi. > > On the one hand - billion dollar machines going where no one has gone > before, Nobels in sight, or at least a career as a famous researcher. > > On the other hand - psychology stuff, which is basically people chatting. > > No comparison. Speaking as someone who was originally a physicist, but who then migrated to cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence, the easier of the two is physics. Richard Loosemore From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 17:44:12 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:44:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Clarification of me and uploading. In-Reply-To: <00198930-B8E2-4B16-8E71-9524CF8D4548@bellsouth.net> References: <4CC111FC.7040209@speakeasy.net> <00198930-B8E2-4B16-8E71-9524CF8D4548@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/22 John Clark : > On Oct 22, 2010, at 12:24 AM, Alan Grimes wrote: snip >> It must also be?accepted that destructive brain uploading is close to the >> worst ways of going about it. > > I've been hearing that statement for years, and without exception when > stripped of their pseudoscientific veneer every single one of the arguments > supporting that view turns into nothing but pure superstition. It's a silly thing to be concerned about. If you can upload at all, the process should be fully reversible. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 22 17:54:51 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:54:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> On 10/22/2010 12:09 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: >> psychology stuff, which is basically people chatting. > Speaking as someone who was originally a physicist, but who then > migrated to cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence, the easier > of the two is physics. Mathematics is basically people chatting. Physics and psychology is basically people chatting and taking carefully measurements and chatting again then taking more careful measurements. BillK might be getting psychology confused with psychoanalysis, or est, or novelists. Damien Broderick From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Oct 22 17:35:53 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:35:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Clarification of me and uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC111FC.7040209@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: On Oct 22, 2010, at 3:32 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Consider the mass ratio of a computer to the power plant (not battery or other energy > storage, but energy generation) that powers it. Might it not be the case that, even if > optimum computronium becomes available, the majority of the mass might need to be > devoted to energy harvesting - as in a classic Dyson sphere? You can't upload a power source obviously, but I think it will always take less energy to simulate a hurricane than to power such storms as they exist in the hardware level, the lowest most fundamental level of reality of the Jupiter Brain. Also, if the Jupiter Brain feels nostalgic about humanity and wants to keep people around, it would probably feel safer sticking them in the software level. If it is kind and knows some people don't want to be uploaded he just won't tell them they've been uploaded and they'll never know the difference. For these reasons it seems likely that everything that can be uploaded will be uploaded; assuming there is not some disaster (positive feedback loops from electronic drug addition?) that throws a monkey wrench into the entire works. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 17:38:12 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 10:38:12 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] papers on logic In-Reply-To: References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><5B60A8EF-12BC-41C8-B0B8-C7A8EB98B658@bellsouth.net><4CC10D8A.8010408@satx.rr.com><605BC306-3D77-415F-BD6D-AA7C471E52F1@bellsouth.net><4CC1198A.8070603@satx.rr.com><4CC11B39.9080302@satx.rr.com><4CC12D38.1090204@satx.rr.com><7B29BC20EFD24D3BA5D18730323D6431@PCserafino> <302394.94420.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <223068.53596.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Fuzzy logic doesn't exhaust the field of non-classical logics* -- and its (and their)?application is much further afield than law and politics. E.g., a common way of explaining fuzzy logic (and fuzzy set theory) is to use?examples from everyday life, such as saying?"X is old" or "Y is tall."?All people I know use such qualities outside of law and politics. (I reckon one can make a distinction between law and politics.) Regards, Dan * Think of the various?modal logics, relevant logics, and intuitionistic logic. See Graham Priest's _Introduction to Non-Classical Logic_ for an overview of some of these. From: scerir To: ExI chat list Sent: Fri, October 22, 2010 11:14:22 AM Subject: Re: [ExI] papers on logic Hi Dan, Many years ago I was interested in that sort of fuzzy logic they use in law and in? politics. Not sure there is a difference between law and politics though ;-) > Thanks for sending this! I've been studying non-classical logics for the last >several years. Though these papers seem tangential to that, they should still be >interesting. > Regards, > Dan _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From pharos at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 18:21:13 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 19:21:13 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Mathematics is basically people chatting. Physics and psychology is > basically people chatting and taking carefully measurements and chatting > again then taking more careful measurements. > > BillK might be getting psychology confused with psychoanalysis, or est, or > novelists. > > Pull the other one, Damien. :) Show me psychologists playing with a billion dollar machine. BillK From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 22 18:41:36 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 13:41:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CC1DAE0.2040803@satx.rr.com> On 10/22/2010 1:21 PM, BillK wrote: > Show me psychologists playing with a billion dollar machine. I can show you economists playing with a trillion dollar machine, will that do? Damien Broderick From rpwl at lightlink.com Fri Oct 22 18:44:25 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:44:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CC1DB89.1030003@lightlink.com> BillK wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 6:54 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: >> Mathematics is basically people chatting. Physics and psychology is >> basically people chatting and taking carefully measurements and chatting >> again then taking more careful measurements. >> >> BillK might be getting psychology confused with psychoanalysis, or est, or >> novelists. >> >> > > Pull the other one, Damien. :) > > Show me psychologists playing with a billion dollar machine. Wait: shirley you can't be serious? ;-) a) There are probably a few hundred multi-million-dollar brain scanning machines in use by psychologists, worldwide. b) Cognitive psychologists like myself will soon be needing (and within the next ten years we will probably be *getting*) some seriously large supercomputers. In fact, I would not be surprised if you find that within the next ten years the use of supercomputers by a new branch of the psychology community starts to overtake all other uses (because this new branch will be a hybrid of psychology and AI). However, having said all of that, it ain't scientific need that determines who gets the billion-dollar toys. You know that. :-) Richard Loosemore From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 18:57:15 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:57:15 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: <4CC1DAE0.2040803@satx.rr.com> References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <4CC1DAE0.2040803@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <184040.97566.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> While I don't agree with Bill's point here, economists as economists are not really psychologists, are they? In fact, here I'd agree with Mises, Robbins, etc. that economics is a logic of action and not psychology -- that economic laws are not psychological in nature. Regards, Dan From: Damien Broderick To: ExI chat list Sent: Fri, October 22, 2010 2:41:36 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Physics versus psychology On 10/22/2010 1:21 PM, BillK wrote: > Show me psychologists playing with a billion dollar machine. I can show you economists playing with a trillion dollar machine, will that do? Damien Broderick _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From pharos at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 18:57:27 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 19:57:27 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: <4CC1DB89.1030003@lightlink.com> References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <4CC1DB89.1030003@lightlink.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: > a) ?There are probably a few hundred multi-million-dollar brain scanning > machines in use by psychologists, worldwide. > > b) Cognitive psychologists like myself will soon be needing (and within the > next ten years we will probably be *getting*) some seriously large > supercomputers. ?In fact, I would not be surprised if you find that within > the next ten years the use of supercomputers by a new branch of the > psychology community starts to overtake all other uses (because this new > branch will be a hybrid of psychology and AI). > Brain scanning machines are used by neuroscientists. Wikipedia: The techniques used by neuroscientists have also expanded enormously, from biophysical and molecular studies of individual nerve cells to imaging of perceptual and motor tasks in the brain. Recent theoretical advances in neuroscience have also been aided by the study of neural networks. BillK From atymes at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 19:01:11 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 12:01:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Clarification of me and uploading. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC111FC.7040209@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/22 John Clark > For these reasons it seems likely that everything that can be uploaded will > be uploaded; assuming there is not some disaster (positive feedback loops > from electronic drug addition?) that throws a monkey wrench into the entire > works. > Maybe. My point is, though, there will always be a significant part of the universe that has not been uploaded, so any sentience that wishes to continue to exist will need a means of dealing with it - which requires power source, manipulation, and intelligence that is directly dealing with the real world instead of any virtual environment. This may seem like a small thing - it might account for a tiny fraction of all sentience in such a scenario. (Or not. Why assume that most sentience would be interested in accurately re-enacting the past in excruciating detail? That is not the case today - though there are certainly those who do it, they're not the majority - and none of the changes proposed would seem to make that any more desirable. Easier to do, perhaps, but why do that instead of doing something new?) Thing is, it's the fraction that most non-transhumanists would prefer to be, if they were in such a setting, on initial review. To appear to dismiss it means they won't give it further review, and just dismiss all proponents of uploading. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Fri Oct 22 18:46:28 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 11:46:28 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Father and Son Launch iPhone Into Stratosphere Message-ID: <856719.19678.qm@web30102.mail.mud.yahoo.com> http://mashable.com/2010/10/17/iphone-space-launch-video/ Reminds of old films I've seen of early rocket launches. Regards, Dan From rpwl at lightlink.com Fri Oct 22 19:13:18 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:13:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: <184040.97566.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <4CC1DAE0.2040803@satx.rr.com> <184040.97566.qm@web30103.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CC1E24E.6030803@lightlink.com> Dan wrote: > While I don't agree with Bill's point here, economists as economists are not > really psychologists, are they? In fact, here I'd agree with Mises, Robbins, > etc. that economics is a logic of action and not psychology -- that economic > laws are not psychological in nature. Bit of a can of worms, that one. Economics boils down to the collective behavior of various Actors, each of which follows its own logic (which actually means its own *psychology*). An awful lot of economics is about guessing what kind of "utility function" these Actors are using ... but that term "utility function" is really just a code word for psychology. Problem is, there are (roughly) two schools of thought: Classical Economics, which seeks to pretend that everything is about the analytic mathematics of systems that seek optimal states, and Complex Systems Economics, which is about the fact that analytic mathematics is just a silly fantasy imposed on the field by people with a fetish for math. One denies that psychology has any important role to play. So take your pick: either it is all psychology or it is all math. Richard Loosemore From rpwl at lightlink.com Fri Oct 22 19:24:38 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:24:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <4CC1DB89.1030003@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <4CC1E4F6.3030704@lightlink.com> BillK wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 7:44 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: >> a) There are probably a few hundred multi-million-dollar brain scanning >> machines in use by psychologists, worldwide. >> >> b) Cognitive psychologists like myself will soon be needing (and within the >> next ten years we will probably be *getting*) some seriously large >> supercomputers. In fact, I would not be surprised if you find that within >> the next ten years the use of supercomputers by a new branch of the >> psychology community starts to overtake all other uses (because this new >> branch will be a hybrid of psychology and AI). >> > > > > Brain scanning machines are used by neuroscientists. Hnnh, I think you might want to get up to date on what cognitive psychologists are actually doing, and pay a little less attention to wikipedia. :-) The latest edition of one of the flagship textbooks of cognitive psychology (Eysenck and Keane) is overflowing with brain scanning references. If you want research funding and career advancement these days, you pretty much have to get yourself some fMRI data. The boundaries between cognitive psychology and neuroscience are far from clear, and cognitive psychologists are flocking to the borderland as fast as they can. Richard Loosemore From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 19:27:41 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:27:41 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Observation: In-Reply-To: <1CAC0E4CAF1B4A5E8B7C1EBE342489C5@spike> References: <4CC18FF5.1030809@speakeasy.net> <1CAC0E4CAF1B4A5E8B7C1EBE342489C5@spike> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:37 PM, spike wrote: > I am an agnostic on the topic of uploader's behavior, but I can be converted > to be a true believer. ?I am eager to be a true believer. ?But you need to > give me something on which to base it. ?Show your work. ?{8-] Heretic. True believers are based in shameless, unyielding Faith. From pharos at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 20:48:15 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 21:48:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: <4CC1E4F6.3030704@lightlink.com> References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <4CC1DB89.1030003@lightlink.com> <4CC1E4F6.3030704@lightlink.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: > The boundaries between cognitive psychology and neuroscience are far from > clear, and cognitive psychologists are flocking to the borderland as fast as > they can. > > OK. Discussing exactly what neuroscientists or AI researchers are doing at present as opposed to a few years ago is not really relevant to my original point. The point is comparing the 'hard' sciences with the 'soft' sciences. (Check Wikipedia for definitions) ;) psi is a 'soft' science. (Many people don't even accept it as a science at all). psi is investigated by psychologists as well as others. psi research does not involve billion dollar investments in technical machines. So to researchers contemplating their future career, they will generally not want to enter a field where there is little financial investment. That was the point of my comment on Damien's remark. (Of course I appreciate that psychology or psi research involves a bit more than 'people chatting'. But it is a bit different from building the Large Hadron Collider). BillK From rpwl at lightlink.com Fri Oct 22 21:06:45 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:06:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <4CC1DB89.1030003@lightlink.com> <4CC1E4F6.3030704@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <4CC1FCE5.1030908@lightlink.com> BillK wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 8:24 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: >> The boundaries between cognitive psychology and neuroscience are far from >> clear, and cognitive psychologists are flocking to the borderland as fast as >> they can. >> >> > > > OK. Discussing exactly what neuroscientists or AI researchers are > doing at present as opposed to a few years ago is not really relevant > to my original point. > > The point is comparing the 'hard' sciences with the 'soft' sciences. > (Check Wikipedia for definitions) ;) > > psi is a 'soft' science. (Many people don't even accept it as a science at all). > psi is investigated by psychologists as well as others. psi research > does not involve billion dollar investments in technical machines. So > to researchers contemplating their future career, they will generally > not want to enter a field where there is little financial investment. > > That was the point of my comment on Damien's remark. > > (Of course I appreciate that psychology or psi research involves a bit > more than 'people chatting'. But it is a bit different from building > the Large Hadron Collider). Ah, clarification accepted. I as really looking at your comment as "psychology (GENERALLY) = people chatting". But if you meant "parapsychology (SPECIFICALLY) = people chatting" ..... well, still that is very far from accurate, as Damien pointed out, but my comments don't apply to that statement. Damien's general point is pretty accurate though. If you took all the work from the LHC and other particle detectors, and you looked ahead, say, 50 years, you might find nothing much of practical use comes out of it except happier (?) physicists. I know what my professors were doing at UCL back in 1980, and I've got a pretty good idea how many fantastic applications have come out of their muon and Higgs Boson hunts in the years since then ... I mean, uh, sorry folks, but that would be zip! But if someone discovered that there was some *bizarre* way to get information back from the future, a discovery like that would be so radical that it *could* actually open a slew of new applications ... potentially more than from the LHC. But I am tired of the discussion now (as I am sure are you, and many others!), because speculating about the relative payback of different lines of scientific enquiry is pretty much a crap shoot. I happen to think that psi is underfunded and particle physics is massively overfunded, but I would not for a moment argue that the budget numbers should just be swapped between the two! :-) Heck, I just want people to fund artificial general intelligence, never mind the particle physicists and the psi researchers. Richard Loosemore From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 18:57:04 2010 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado (CI)) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:57:04 -0200 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries Message-ID: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> Could someone who knows more than me about electric cars (I assume most people on this list probably does) and electricity in general enlighten me (with numbers if not too much trouble) on why no company has yet made a car with a gas turbine for power generation that feeds an electric engine? As far as I know, there are very capable small gas turbines around nowadays. Couple this with with an Einstein-Szilard refrigerator and the car could even have air conditioner solely feeded on the wasted heat of the turbine... Far out? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Oct 22 21:47:03 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 14:47:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> Message-ID: See "hybrid cars". They might not always have that specific setup (apparently, that's most often done for bus-sized hybrids, mainly for want of suppliers of low cost, high quality microturbines small enough to be cost and performance competitive for normal cars), but that is their general concept. 2010/10/22 Henrique Moraes Machado (CI) > Could someone who knows more than me about electric cars (I assume most > people on this list probably does) and electricity in general enlighten me > (with numbers if not too much trouble) on why no company has yet made a car > with a gas turbine for power generation that feeds an electric engine? > As far as I know, there are very capable small gas turbines around > nowadays. > > Couple this with with an Einstein-Szilard refrigerator and the car could > even have air conditioner solely feeded on the wasted heat of the turbine... > > Far out? > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 22 22:59:19 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:59:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal. In-Reply-To: References: <430087.67603.qm@web110414.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <5B60A8EF-12BC-41C8-B0B8-C7A8EB98B658@bellsouth.net> <4CC10D8A.8010408@satx.rr.com> <605BC306-3D77-415F-BD6D-AA7C471E52F1@bellsouth.net> <4CC1198A.8070603@satx.rr.com> <4CC11B39.9080302@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CC21747.9080200@satx.rr.com> On 10/22/2010 12:35 AM, John Clark wrote: >> just shut the hell up on this topic > No. My comment as reported above sounds more gratuitous, and therefore more offensive, than it was. What I actually wrote, which you redacted, is: "just shut the hell up on this topic, of which you adamantly refuse to learn anything." I'll now shut the fuck up as well. Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Fri Oct 22 22:49:09 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 15:49:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] wildlife app Message-ID: <7315611E643B4022AA7C8BF79268644C@spike> Cool! http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/mobile/10/22/citizen.scientists.app/index.html? hpt=T2 This is an application I have anticipated for years. For every professional beast watcher, there are perhaps 100 yahoos like me who just do it for fun. Now we can help the pros. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Oct 22 23:35:20 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 16:35:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] wildlife app In-Reply-To: <7315611E643B4022AA7C8BF79268644C@spike> References: <7315611E643B4022AA7C8BF79268644C@spike> Message-ID: <8D2D6DE309024D98B2119E260B85BE1A@spike> ...On Behalf Of spike ... Subject: [ExI] wildlife app http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/mobile/10/22/citizen.scientists.app/index.html? hpt=T2 >...This is an application I have anticipated for years. For every professional beast watcher, there are perhaps 100 yahoos like me who just do it for fun. Now we can help the pros...spike Hey some of you cats who are telephone photography hipsters, some free advice please. I date back to the days when each household had only one phone, and there was only one ring tone. It sounded like... the phone. You couldn't take it with you. But now I can take pictures, which I want to do in order to participate in that exercise described in the article. But most of the wildlife pictures I want to take are of wildlife that is in the 2 to 5 millimeter range, and the phone imagers don't do that very well. Back in the days when cameras had detachable lenses, we had what was called a macro lens, before Microsloth took that term and used it for something else. Question please: is there anything analogous to a macro lens for a phone? Or are there phones that can take super close-ups, to where I can photo an ant with enough detail that an expert could identify the species? spike From atymes at gmail.com Sat Oct 23 00:51:50 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 17:51:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] wildlife app In-Reply-To: <8D2D6DE309024D98B2119E260B85BE1A@spike> References: <7315611E643B4022AA7C8BF79268644C@spike> <8D2D6DE309024D98B2119E260B85BE1A@spike> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 4:35 PM, spike wrote: > Question please: is there anything analogous to a macro lens for a phone? > Or are there phones that can take super close-ups, to where I can photo an > ant with enough detail that an expert could identify the species? > > You mean something like this? http://www.goodandevo.net/2010/06/review-magnetic-macro-lens-for-htc-evo-4g.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Oct 23 01:23:08 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 18:23:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] wildlife app In-Reply-To: References: <7315611E643B4022AA7C8BF79268644C@spike><8D2D6DE309024D98B2119E260B85BE1A@spike> Message-ID: <624A8AAAB24E42B19713C412C070EA77@spike> ...On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 4:35 PM, spike wrote: >>...Question please: is there anything analogous to a macro lens for a phone? Or are there phones that can take super close-ups, to where I can photo an ant with enough detail that an expert could identify the species? >...You mean something like this? http://www.goodandevo.net/2010/06/review-magnetic-macro-lens-for-htc-evo-4g. html WOW thanks! Impressive. This should allow me to get some really good bug pix. If we want to study global climate change as a function of the impact on wildlife, I would think insects would be a better indicator than birds or mammals. Reasoning: with the bigger beasts there aren't enough of them, and there aren't enough different kinds. In any given area, there are usually only a few mammal species and a perhaps a couple dozen bird species. One can be out all day and never even see a wild mammal. But there are hundreds of different kinds of bugs. Even a small climate change should tilt the playing field in favor of one over another competing species. spike From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Sat Oct 23 01:06:08 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 22:06:08 -0300 Subject: [ExI] New York Times: Goldman Sachs Discloses New Bad Publicity Risk Message-ID: Some one posted an article on Exi a couple of months ago written by Matt Taibbi in Rolling Stone Magazine about Goldman Sachs' contribution to the economic crash in 08-09. http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64796 Here is a piece published on the New York Times website today highlighting Goldman's admission that negative PR is now a financial risk factor for them. http://dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/01/goldman-discloses-a-new-risk-bad-publicity/ The Rolling Stone article, though widely (and wildly) debated, has been been a thorn in Goldman's side ever since its publication in '09. The company has been in a war of words with the magazine ever since, but has never threatened to sue, as far as I can tell. Which says a lot more about the veracity of Taibbi's facts than Goldman's objections, since Taibbi claimed that they were criminally responsible for every major bubble crash of the last hundred years. Time Magazine carried an editorial essentially defending Taibbi and the feature, and criticizing the Wall Street Journal's negative assessment of Taibbi's position by questioning his use of metaphor [specifically his observation/opinion that Goldman was a "great vampire squid wrapped around the face of humanity.] http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,1908562,00.html It should be pointed out that while Time essentially agrees with Taibbi, they also criticize the piece on the same grounds that someone on this list did at the time: that the article focuses on only one banking investment firm while letting all others off the hook. Goldman has faced criticism on many fronts in the last couple of years. But the Rolling Stone article caused the biggest stir and must have been one of the most influential pieces of financial journalism in recent years. Some journalists and editorialists claim that the piece may have single-handedly damaged the bank's world-wide reputation. (Though it also should be noted that it hasn't seemed to hurt their business any, at least until they admitted today that the possibility exists.) Politico carried a story last March about a meeting between Goldman CEO Lloyd Blankfein and Rolling Stone co-owner Jann Wenner at a Barack Obama speech, which can be found here: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0410/36209.html I don't know if anyone else is interested in this on-going story. But, regardless of your position on these matters, I find it heartening to know that journalism can still wield influence outside of exposing the latest night-club blunder of Brittany Spears or sexual peccadillo of your local elected official. Cheers, Darren -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Sat Oct 23 01:11:51 2010 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 23:11:51 -0200 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> Message-ID: 2010/10/22 Adrian Tymes : > See "hybrid cars".? They might not always have that specific setup > (apparently, that's > most often done for bus-sized hybrids, mainly for want of suppliers of low > cost, high > quality microturbines small enough to be cost and performance competitive > for normal > cars), but that is their general concept. Thank you for the input. I actually found exactly this kind of setup here: http://blogs.howstuffworks.com/2009/12/02/a-new-way-to-build-hybrid-vehicles-how-the-capstone-microturbine-car-works/. And it's not even new... The turbine doesn't move the car, it just recharges the batteries. I allways thought that it could be a good idea. 500 miles of autonomy seems very nice. From agrimes at speakeasy.net Sat Oct 23 03:43:15 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 23:43:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> Message-ID: <4CC259D3.9040407@speakeasy.net> Bleh, there's nothing wrong with batteries except they could always use more capacity! =P I've been waiting since Aug 28th for the motor for my electric car. =( The company finally shipped me the contactor and says the motor will be shipped soon. =\ I consider it a training car but maybe that was a mistake, maybe I should have started out building the car I actually want... The piece of junk I have is turning into more of a money pit than I could have imagined. =( Did you know you could get a 32kwh battery for about 10 grand? =P Suck on that, Leaf! =P Now for my next car, I want a Factory 5 Type 65 coupe in direct drive with a Net Gain TransWarp 11HV (HV, BABY!!!). The controller will be a Soliton 1 (or Zilla if it comes back on the market)... The Albright SW202B will be my forward/reverse switch. My only worry is how I'm going to get 96 lithium ion cells onto that chassis. =( The CALB 180 ampre hour cells seem perfect for that application though. =P But then Kurzweil's Computronium Shockwave will probably wipe it all out before I can afford that much gear. (About $50 grand for the project =((((( ) -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From sen.otaku at googlemail.com Sat Oct 23 03:48:20 2010 From: sen.otaku at googlemail.com (Sen Yamamoto) Date: Fri, 22 Oct 2010 23:48:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: <4CC259D3.9040407@speakeasy.net> References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> <4CC259D3.9040407@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: the problem with batteries is recycling! From agrimes at speakeasy.net Sat Oct 23 05:38:34 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 01:38:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> <4CC259D3.9040407@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4CC274DA.7090705@speakeasy.net> chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: > the problem with batteries is recycling! No, it's not! =P A good set of well-tended lithiums will last 8 years, after that they're mostly copper and aluminium (that's how some ppl pronounce it). Copper is semi-precious, and aluminum is trivial to recycle. (Only about 5% is actually lithium. =P You also might have a number of other elements, Iron, phosphorus, cadmium, yitrium, etc. But yeah, Most of the better batteries advertise a cycle life between 3 and 5 thousand cycles depending on how well you maintain them and how hard you drive them. Even after all that, they're still better than 75% of their original capacity... =P -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From pharos at gmail.com Sat Oct 23 08:09:10 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 09:09:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] wildlife app In-Reply-To: <624A8AAAB24E42B19713C412C070EA77@spike> References: <7315611E643B4022AA7C8BF79268644C@spike> <8D2D6DE309024D98B2119E260B85BE1A@spike> <624A8AAAB24E42B19713C412C070EA77@spike> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 2:23 AM, spike wrote: > If we want to study global climate change as a function of the impact on > wildlife, I would think insects would be a better indicator than birds or > mammals. ?Reasoning: with the bigger beasts there aren't enough of them, and > there aren't enough different kinds. ?In any given area, there are usually > only a few mammal species and a perhaps a couple dozen bird species. ?One > can be out all day and never even see a wild mammal. But they are all watching you! We live in a housing estate where at least every second house has a cat, but you don't see more than one or two during the day. I remember that one night when our cat ran off to see the nightlife I had to go out with a torch looking for it. Everywhere I pointed the torch a pair of eyes shone back at me! (I assume they were cats). I eventually cornered our cat OK. We also have many urban red foxes around, but you rarely see them until one runs across the road in front of the car at night. Badgers as well are nocturnal. Grey squirrels keep out of the way usually. Some people feed the wild animals so that they come into their garden and provide a show for the family and get filmed. > But there are hundreds > of different kinds of bugs. ?Even a small climate change should tilt the > playing field in favor of one over another competing species. > Yes, the march northward of many species is already being recorded. BillK From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sat Oct 23 10:15:11 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 03:15:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Retired military officers come forward about UFO visitations Message-ID: Retired military officers and others have come forward about UFO visitations. These men are convinced that advanced alien intelligences are very interested in the global nuclear arsenals... http://embedr.com/playlist/national-press-club-ufo-disclosure-conference-27-sep-2010-ufos-at-nuclear-weapon http://www.wanttoknow.info/ufocover-up10pg#2 John From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Oct 23 16:20:59 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 12:20:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> On 10/22/2010 12:09 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: > Speaking as someone who was originally a physicist, but who then > migrated to cognitive psychology and artificial intelligence, the easier > of the two is physics. That is true but that is also the problem. Doing really great work in psychology, work that ranks up there with Newton or Darwin or Einstein, is so incredibly difficult that nobody has managed to do any yet. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Oct 23 17:14:31 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:14:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> Message-ID: On Oct 22, 2010, at 2:57 PM, Henrique Moraes Machado (CI) wrote: > Could someone who knows more than me about electric cars (I assume most people on this list probably does) and electricity in general enlighten me (with numbers if not too much trouble) on why no company has yet made a car with a gas turbine for power generation that feeds an electric engine? Turbines have a lot of advantages, they can be very efficient and their design is simpler and thus they are more reliable than internal combustion engines, but the actual construction of a turbine is much more expensive and complicated. The turbine blade must be light, strong, very precisely machined, corrosion resistant, and able to maintain it's strength and precise shape even at extremely high temperatures; all this can be done but its not easy and its not cheap. Also, in general the smaller the turbine the greater the RPM's, if you scaled down the turbine you have in a power plant so that it would fit into a car it would have a much higher RPM, and that would give you more problems in metal fatigue and wear. And you'd have to gear down that super fast RPM before you could connect it to an electrical generator, and that would likely be a more complex arrangement of gears than those found in the transmission of the car you use today. There are also serious noise issues you'd need to solve. I don't want to discourage anybody, someday we may well all be driving turbine-electric cars but it will take some R&D. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Oct 23 18:24:09 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 14:24:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> Message-ID: 2010/10/23 John Clark : > serious noise issues you'd need to solve. I don't want to discourage anybody ... Since when? From spike66 at att.net Sat Oct 23 18:21:10 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 11:21:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bug in outloading notion In-Reply-To: References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> Message-ID: <8BBDE095723C4246BFD1204DA5405F10@spike> Ooops, I may have discovered a problem with my outloading idea. Assume an emergent AI reads everything online and decides to invisibly outload, first residing quietly in the background in the great PC network, then outloading to satellites, where they or it creates nanobots which continue outward to the moon, Mars, asteroids etc, intentionally keeping life on earth as is with very little or no influence. Problem: if AI emerged from our thinking machines once, it could emerge twice. If so, the first AI would allow the introduction of a potentially competing species, if I use the term species loosely, and assume it roughly analogous to the lions vs the hyenas. In that case we have two competing species, natural enemies which interact on a regular basis, compete for resources and maintain presence in oscillating equilibrium. If an emergent AI is friendly and matches our notions of ethics, it would outload. This would set itself vulnerable to competition for resources with a later and possibly more aggessive subsequent AI. Even if the second AI is friendly and matches our notions of ethics, it would join forces with the first, and both would be vulnerable to the third emergent AI. The later AI(s) would not only compete with the first AI's resources beyond earth, but would also threaten to devour the wonderful beasts first AI's earthly zoo. Damn. {8-[ spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Oct 23 18:51:58 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 11:51:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/23 John Clark : snip > Doing really great work in > psychology, work that ranks up there with Newton or Darwin or Einstein, is > so incredibly difficult that nobody has managed to do any yet. I disagree on it being difficult, having done substantial work in this area on the common origin of capture-bonding (Stockholm syndrome), battered wife syndrome, military basic training and hazing. Also on the common origin of drug addiction and cult addiction. On this very mailing list I analyzed the genetic basis of a model for the origins of both religions and wars as well as a previous journal article on the subject. I would venture to guess that fewer than one in ten of the list readers have even read the journal articles. Of course, such work is throughly politically incorrect and thus not widely accepted, not even here. Keith From spike66 at att.net Sat Oct 23 18:36:47 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 11:36:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> Message-ID: <1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty > Subject: Re: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries > > 2010/10/23 John Clark : > > serious noise issues you'd need to solve. I don't want to discourage anybody ... > > Since when? Since always. The turbines aren't necessarily noisy but the gear trains are. For a gas turbine to be efficient it must spin like all hell, which makes them inherently challenging for mechanical engineers. If you know a practical way to quiet those gear trains and deal with the lubrication and wear problems, do share, so we can be rich and famous (you famous, me rich.) spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Oct 23 19:03:45 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 12:03:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bug in outloading notion In-Reply-To: <8BBDE095723C4246BFD1204DA5405F10@spike> References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> <8BBDE095723C4246BFD1204DA5405F10@spike> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:21 AM, spike wrote: > > > Ooops, I may have discovered a problem with my outloading idea. > > Assume an emergent AI reads everything online and decides to invisibly > outload, first residing quietly in the background in the great PC network, > then outloading to satellites, where they or it creates nanobots which > continue outward to the moon, Mars, asteroids etc, intentionally keeping > life on earth as is with very little or no influence. It could make an interesting sf story. However, it would have to load an outgoing satellite with a nanofactory. The existing ones have no facility to turn part of itself into nanobots. And that is much the same problem people have. Even if you had all the information about how to make a nanotech object, starting with a hammer and an anvil it's going to take a while. There are probably efficient paths from current technology to the world of molecular manufacturing but we don't know them yet. Keith > Problem: if AI emerged from our thinking machines once, it could emerge > twice. ?If so, the first AI would allow the introduction of a potentially > competing species, if I use the term species loosely, and assume it roughly > analogous to the lions vs the hyenas. ?In that case we have two competing > species, natural enemies which interact on a regular basis, compete for > resources and maintain presence in oscillating equilibrium. > > If an emergent AI is friendly and matches our notions of ethics, it would > outload. ?This would set itself vulnerable to competition for resources with > a later and possibly more aggessive subsequent AI. ?Even if the second AI is > friendly and matches our notions of ethics, it would join forces with the > first, and both would be vulnerable to the third emergent AI. ?The later > AI(s) would not only compete with the first AI's resources beyond earth, but > would also threaten to devour the wonderful beasts first AI's earthly zoo. > > Damn. > > {8-[ > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Oct 23 19:09:40 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 12:09:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: <1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike> References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> <1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike> Message-ID: The obvious way is to direct couple the turbine to an AC generator. No gears. Just incidentally, that's the way diesel electric locomotives work. Turbines *still* make weird sounds for those used to piston engines. Keith On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:36 AM, spike wrote: > > >> ...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty >> Subject: Re: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries >> >> 2010/10/23 John Clark : >> > serious noise issues you'd need to solve. I don't want to discourage > anybody ... >> >> Since when? > > Since always. ?The turbines aren't necessarily noisy but the gear trains > are. ?For a gas turbine to be efficient it must spin like all hell, which > makes them inherently challenging for mechanical engineers. ?If you know a > practical way to quiet those gear trains and deal with the lubrication and > wear problems, do share, so we can be rich and famous (you famous, me rich.) > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From spike66 at att.net Sat Oct 23 19:12:21 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 12:12:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com><4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com><938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Keith Henson ... > Subject: Re: [ExI] Physics versus psychology > > ...On this very mailing list I > analyzed the genetic basis of a model for the origins of both > religions and wars as well as a previous journal article on > the subject... Of course, such work is throughly politically incorrect and > thus not widely accepted, not even here... Keith Keith, I and perhaps a lot of people here find this area extremely interesting, but don't claim enough understanding of the topic to risk comment. That is where I am. My own understanding of the human emotional operating system is paltry indeed. It would be embarrassingly so, were I capable of the emotion of embarrassment. spike From spike66 at att.net Sat Oct 23 19:35:56 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 12:35:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bug in outloading notion In-Reply-To: References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm><8BBDE095723C4246BFD1204DA5405F10@spike> Message-ID: <21BAD0E7ACB6433B86E9A72B64717388@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Keith Henson > Subject: Re: [ExI] bug in outloading notion > > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 11:21 AM, spike wrote: > > > > Assume an emergent AI reads everything online and decides > > to invisibly outload... > > It could make an interesting sf story. However, it would > have to load an outgoing satellite with a nanofactory. The > existing ones have no facility to turn part of itself into nanobots... > There are probably efficient paths from current technology to > the world of molecular manufacturing but we don't know them yet. > > Keith Indeed sir. An emergent AI would eventually be way beyond our intellect, and would perhaps discover a way to utilize bacteria aboard the space station to build the first nanofactories in space. Even some unmanned satellites carry bacteria in suitable conditions, with air (as a heat transfer mechanism) and thermal stability (to mitigate Werner Engelmaier stress on the solder joints from thermal cycling.) The bacteria are thought to be able to live for some time as nourished by residue from the compounds used as a surfactant to chemically activate surfaces and as a solvent in super mild solder paste used in high reliability manufacturing. That stuff is a deriviative of tree sap, which contains hydrocarbons. The electronic cleaning chemicals such as EC7R, common in high-rel electronic manufacturing, is derived from citrus peel extract, which also contains chemically active hydrocarbons, which are thought to sustain bacteria for who knows how long. Actually I may be able to make a stronger statement. Every satellite that I know of carries hybrid electronic circuits in sealed containers way inside, so that somewhere on that bird there exists a place or places where bacteria could theoretically exist. Since there are humans breathing in the same cleanroom where these hybrids are assembled, I can state with confidence that every satellite has livings beasts aboard for perhaps years after launch. I can think of no exceptions. The question is whether it is theoretically possible for software, by some mysterious means, to influence bacteria to manipulate chemical substances, and can they create covalent bonds, and do they need to, if ionic bonds will do? (Don't know)^3. spike From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Sat Oct 23 19:59:29 2010 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 17:59:29 -0200 Subject: [ExI] Retired military officers come forward about UFO visitations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:15 AM, John Grigg wrote: > Retired military officers and others have come forward about UFO > visitations. ?These men are convinced that advanced alien > intelligences are very interested in the global nuclear arsenals... > http://embedr.com/playlist/national-press-club-ufo-disclosure-conference-27-sep-2010-ufos-at-nuclear-weapon > http://www.wanttoknow.info/ufocover-up10pg#2 And as usual, these people have much to talk and nothing to show. From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sat Oct 23 20:28:06 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:28:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Observation: In-Reply-To: References: <4CC18FF5.1030809@speakeasy.net> <1CAC0E4CAF1B4A5E8B7C1EBE342489C5@spike> Message-ID: Spike wrote: >I am an agnostic on the topic of uploader's behavior, but I can be converted > to be a true believer. I am eager to be a true believer. But you need to > give me something on which to base it. Show your work. {8-] Mike Dougherty replied: >Heretic. True believers are based in shameless, unyielding Faith. "Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power." -- Eric Hoffer, Reflections on the Human Condition, aph. 13 (1973), quoted from The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations On 10/22/10, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Fri, Oct 22, 2010 at 12:37 PM, spike wrote: >> I am an agnostic on the topic of uploader's behavior, but I can be >> converted >> to be a true believer. ?I am eager to be a true believer. ?But you need to >> give me something on which to base it. ?Show your work. ?{8-] > > Heretic. True believers are based in shameless, unyielding Faith. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sat Oct 23 20:43:47 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 13:43:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Retired military officers come forward about UFO visitations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Henrique Moraes Machado wrote: >And as usual, these people have much to talk and nothing to show. You make the comment that they have "nothing to show," but how would they? These men worked in very high security areas where trying to photograph such objects, and smuggle out the film would be extremely hard. And the visitors to their military bases were not in the habit of leaving souvenirs behind for them to take home... lol But their testimony alone is of great value, considering they are retired military officers who at one time had high-level security clearances. These are not drunk lumberjacks with questionable personal backgrounds, getting abducted along a dirt path in a dark forest somewhere... In a court setting, the personal testimony of these many men, due to their excellent individual reputations & military service as officers, would win the case! John On 10/23/10, Henrique Moraes Machado wrote: > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 8:15 AM, John Grigg > wrote: >> Retired military officers and others have come forward about UFO >> visitations. ?These men are convinced that advanced alien >> intelligences are very interested in the global nuclear arsenals... >> http://embedr.com/playlist/national-press-club-ufo-disclosure-conference-27-sep-2010-ufos-at-nuclear-weapon >> http://www.wanttoknow.info/ufocover-up10pg#2 > > And as usual, these people have much to talk and nothing to show. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Sat Oct 23 20:53:30 2010 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 18:53:30 -0200 Subject: [ExI] Retired military officers come forward about UFO visitations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 6:43 PM, John Grigg wrote: > Henrique Moraes Machado wrote: >>And as usual, these people have much to talk and nothing to show. > > You make the comment that they have "nothing to show," but how would > they? ?These men worked in very high security areas where trying to > photograph such objects, and smuggle out the film would be extremely > hard. ?And the visitors to their military bases were not in the habit > of leaving souvenirs behind for them to take home... lol > > But their testimony alone is of great value, considering they are > retired military officers who at one time had high-level security > clearances. ?These are not drunk lumberjacks with questionable > personal backgrounds, getting abducted along a dirt path in a dark > forest somewhere... > > In a court setting, the personal testimony of these many men, due to > their excellent individual reputations & military service as officers, > would win the case! Fair enough. But we're not in court and what these people are asking us to believe demands more than a mere testimony. You just made an argument of authority. From brent.allsop at canonizer.com Sat Oct 23 20:14:31 2010 From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 14:14:31 -0600 Subject: [ExI] bug in outloading notion In-Reply-To: <8BBDE095723C4246BFD1204DA5405F10@spike> References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> <8BBDE095723C4246BFD1204DA5405F10@spike> Message-ID: <4CC34227.9030800@canonizer.com> Yes, this is related to the 'bug' I've believed exists in such thinking all along and that we've talked about before. First off, the whole idea of 'competing for resources' and 'enemies' just makes no sense from a wider perspective. Sure, one spices may compete with itself, but is it competing with the rest of life? Does all life on earth 'compete for resources'? Absolutely not. We all find niches, share, and co-operate. None of us could survive without most of nature doing what they do and helping out. And, once you reach our level of power and intelligence, things like experience, information, not being lonely or alone... all of which are easily sharable and reproducible, and much more efficiently stored in matter when co-operating (i.e. less duplicates)... become far more valuable than any resources, even if resources are limited. (i.e. there is lots of stuff and lots of space out there!) Once you make a scientific discovery, it's far better to share it, than to reproduce the very expensive science to discover it yet again... And even if intelligence beings for some incomprehensible reason, didn't notice or value how terrible and immoral isolation / loneliness was, they would face the same problem you mention, in that we would always fear some bigger powerful life force that evolved in some still distant location, that is way ahead of them. It's all just irrational in my way of thinking. All such antisocial / hateful type of future thinking, in my mind, is just full of irrational bugs that don't make any sense to me. Brent Allsop On 10/23/2010 12:21 PM, spike wrote: > > Ooops, I may have discovered a problem with my outloading idea. > > Assume an emergent AI reads everything online and decides to invisibly > outload, first residing quietly in the background in the great PC network, > then outloading to satellites, where they or it creates nanobots which > continue outward to the moon, Mars, asteroids etc, intentionally keeping > life on earth as is with very little or no influence. > > Problem: if AI emerged from our thinking machines once, it could emerge > twice. If so, the first AI would allow the introduction of a potentially > competing species, if I use the term species loosely, and assume it roughly > analogous to the lions vs the hyenas. In that case we have two competing > species, natural enemies which interact on a regular basis, compete for > resources and maintain presence in oscillating equilibrium. > > If an emergent AI is friendly and matches our notions of ethics, it would > outload. This would set itself vulnerable to competition for resources with > a later and possibly more aggessive subsequent AI. Even if the second AI is > friendly and matches our notions of ethics, it would join forces with the > first, and both would be vulnerable to the third emergent AI. The later > AI(s) would not only compete with the first AI's resources beyond earth, but > would also threaten to devour the wonderful beasts first AI's earthly zoo. > > Damn. > > {8-[ > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 23 21:17:17 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 16:17:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Retired military officers come forward about UFO visitations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CC350DD.9060405@satx.rr.com> On 10/23/2010 3:53 PM, Henrique Moraes Machado wrote: >> > In a court setting, the personal testimony of these many men, due to >> > their excellent individual reputations& military service as officers, >> > would win the case! > Fair enough. But we're not in court and what these people are asking > us to believe demands more than a mere testimony. You just made an > argument of authority. I don't think John did. It looks like an argument from (apparent or purported) credibility. Authority, misused as an argument, seems to me to connote power extraneous to the assertion. Credibility derives from expertise, long experience, absence of duress, history of honesty, etc. Whether such UFO testimonials by former military are credible on these grounds remains uncertain. It's obviously not true that there is *no* evidence brought forward; Col. Charles Halt (then deputy base commander of Bentwaters RAF base) famously has a voice tape that he claims records events in Rendlesham forest during a close apparent anomalous craft sighting. Others have challenged that explanation of what he and his team saw, but I don't think anyone is saying the tape was fraudulent (or non-existent--it can be heard online, after all, so it clearly *exists*). Damien Broderick From kanzure at gmail.com Sat Oct 23 21:47:59 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 16:47:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [erps] Fwd: Space Studies Institute Conference on Space Settlement Returns In-Reply-To: <3DC3DD18-937F-4872-9CD2-02F17A3220DB@wallis.com> References: <1103792783438.1101309911800.2306.2.47090022@scheduler> <3DC3DD18-937F-4872-9CD2-02F17A3220DB@wallis.com> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Michael Wallis Date: Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 3:05 PM Subject: [erps] Fwd: Space Studies Institute Conference on Space Settlement Returns To: ERPS List Begin forwarded message: *From: *William Watson/Space Frontier Foundation < william.watson at spacefrontier.org> *Date: *October 19, 2010 6:04:34 AM PDT *To: *mwallis at wallis.com *Subject: **Space Studies Institute Conference on Space Settlement Returns* *Reply-To: *info at spacefrontier.org [image: Spaceisle sponsor banner] The Space Frontier Foundation Advancing NewSpace ... Event Invitation ... FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Space Studies Institute Conference on Space Settlement Returns Registration Closes Tomorrow Sunnyvale, CA - After a nine-year hiatus, the Space Frontier Foundation(SFF) is excited to see the return of the Space Manufacturing Conference hosted by the Space Studies Institute(SSI). Space scientists and entrepreneurs will meet in Silicon Valley on October 29-31 to help plan humanity's future on the high frontier at the Space Manufacturing 14: Critical Technologies for Space Settlement conference. Attendance is limited and registrationcloses Monday, October 25th. Those that wish to take an active role in the colonization of space are encouraged to attend this historic conference. [image: Bernal Sphere]Bernal Sphere Space Habitat. Photo Credit: NASA Ames The gathering will take place primarily at the NASA AmesConference Center, with evening events held at the Sheraton Sunnyvale Hotel. Speakers will present a wide range of research topics, including affordable space transportation, extraterrestrial prospecting, lunar and asteroid manufacturing processes, robotics and tele-operations, closed environment life support systems, space solar power and energy, and off-planet property rights. *"This conference is the only one solely concerned with the science and engineering of humanity's expansion into the solar system. Its most important function is to bring together the engineers, entrepreneurs and researchers who do the real work," *said SSI Executive Vice President and SFF Advocate Lee Valentine. *"We're especially pleased to be holding the event at NASA Ames. Thirty-five years ago, the Ames Research Center was the site of the first large technical study of space settlement. We have made significant progress since then, but with the prospect of low cost space transportation in the near future, now is the time to reinvigorate research and collaboration on the critical path technologies needed for space industrialization and settlement."* The gathering is the revival of a series of biennial conferences held in Princeton, N.J., through 2001. The conference was started by the late Princeton physics professor Gerard K. O'Neill,the founder of the SSI and author of * The High Frontier *, a seminal book on space settlements. Conference Highlights: - *Moon, Mars, Asteroids: Where to Go First for Resources?:* NASA Ames Center Director Pete Wordenwill moderate a panel of six experts to debate the first moves in expanding beyond Earth orbit. The round table discussion will be followed by a reception. - *Luna Nova: New Discoveries About the Poles of the Moon: *Dr. Paul Spudisof the Lunar and Planetary Institutewill host this luncheon talk on Saturday. - *Synthetic Genomics:* Famed biologist and entrepreneur Dr. Craig Venterof the J. Craig Venter Institutewill discuss the role that synthetic organisms can play in future space settlement. This is a joint session with the Synthetic Biology Workshop. - *Asia's Road To the Moon: *Dr. John Lewis of the Space Studies Institute will take an international view of space exploration during this dinner talk. - *Terrestrial Telerobotic Mining Technology: An Enabler for Extraterrestrial Habitation, Mining and Construction: *Dr. Greg Baiden, Penguin Automated Systems, will explore the use of robotic technologies to achieve humanity's goals during Sunday's lunch. Register online todayvia the SSI website, where full agendacan also be viewed. For additional information, please contact Robin Snelson of the Space Studies Institute at robin at ssi.org. *About the Space Studies Institute:* * *Professor Gerard K. O'Neill founded the Space Studies Institute in 1977 with the hope of opening the vast wealth of space to humanity. The Institute's mission, continuing under the direction of President Freeman Dyson, is to open the energy and material resources of space for human benefit within our lifetime. SSI's first commitment is to complete the missing technological links to make possible the productive use of the abundant resources in space. Join the discussion on *SSI Conference on Space Settlement Returns *on our blog. [image: Follow us on Twitter] [image: Find us on Facebook] *Space Frontier Foundation* William J. Watson Executive Director William.Watson at spacefrontier.org *Space Frontier Foundation* Marimikel Charrier Press Manager Press at spacefrontier.org Brought to you by the Space Frontier Foundation, an organization of people dedicated to opening the Space Frontier to human settlement as rapidly as possible. Our goals include protecting the Earth's fragile biosphere and creating a freer and more prosperous life for each generation by using the unlimited energy and material resources of space. Our purpose is to unleash the power of free enterprise and lead humanity permanently into the Solar System. [image: Forward this email to a Friend][image: Join Our Mailing List] [image: Safe Unsubscribe] This email was sent to mwallis at wallis.com by william.watson at spacefrontier.org. Update Profile/Email Address| Instant removal with SafeUnsubscribe? | Privacy Policy . Email Marketing by Space Frontier Foundation | 16 First Avenue | Nyack | NY | 10960 _______________________________________________ erps mailing list erps at lists.erps.org http://lists.erps.org/listinfo.cgi/erps-erps.org -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Sat Oct 23 21:35:37 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 14:35:37 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Retired military officers come forward about UFO visitations In-Reply-To: <4CC350DD.9060405@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC350DD.9060405@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <618306.53774.qm@web65604.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ? ----- Original Message ---- > From: Damien Broderick > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Sat, October 23, 2010 2:17:17 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Retired military officers come forward about UFO visitations > > On 10/23/2010 3:53 PM, Henrique Moraes Machado wrote: > > >> >? In a court setting, the personal testimony of these many men, due to > >> >? their excellent individual reputations&? military service as officers, > >> >? would win the case! > > > Fair enough. But we're not in court and what these people are asking > > us to believe demands more than a mere testimony. You just made an > > argument of authority. > > I don't think John did. It looks like an argument from (apparent or purported) >credibility. Authority, misused as an argument, seems to me to connote power >extraneous to the assertion. Credibility derives from expertise, long >experience, absence of duress, history of honesty, etc. > > Whether such UFO testimonials by former military are credible on these grounds >remains uncertain. It's obviously not true that there is *no* evidence brought >forward; Col. Charles Halt (then deputy base commander of Bentwaters RAF base) >famously has a voice tape that he claims records events in Rendlesham forest >during a close apparent anomalous craft sighting. Others have challenged that >explanation of what he and his team saw, but I don't think anyone is saying the >tape was fraudulent (or non-existent--it can be heard online, after all, so it >clearly *exists*). I agree, Damien. This is some of the most compelling?evidence?I have seen to date on the matter, aside from my own sighting of a UFO while in the military.?In adddition to?their top secret military clearences, these men would have?been routinely screened by the U.S. government with medical and psych evaluations. During the height of the cold war, the U.S., did not turn the keys to its nuclear arsenal over to?anyone but the most stable and reliable of individuals. If one thinks all these men could have independantly and simultaeneously hoaxed or hallucinated this whole affair, with nuclear armageddon or at least their careers at stake,?that stretches skepticism to the point of blind negative faith. I will do some more digging when I get off of work to see if I can find the FOIA documents that they say the?Airforce released to them on the matter online somewhere. Thanks for this, John.? Stuart LaForge ?To be normal is the ideal aim of the unsuccessful.? -Carl Jung???? From pharos at gmail.com Sat Oct 23 22:04:56 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 23:04:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] bug in outloading notion In-Reply-To: <4CC34227.9030800@canonizer.com> References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> <8BBDE095723C4246BFD1204DA5405F10@spike> <4CC34227.9030800@canonizer.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 9:14 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: > And even if intelligence beings for some incomprehensible reason, didn't > notice or value how terrible and immoral isolation / loneliness was, they > would face the same problem you mention, in that we would always fear some > bigger powerful life force that evolved in some still distant location, that > is way ahead of them. ?It's all just irrational in my way of thinking. > > All such antisocial / hateful type of future thinking, in my mind, is just > full of irrational bugs that don't make any sense to me. > > That's one of my possible reasons for intelligent species not colonising the galaxy. Once they develop an incredibly dense network of being always connected to each other and their systems, it will become unthinkable to cut themselves off from the network and go off alone for years exploring. They would be considered 'insane' by the norms of that society. (And maybe treated and 'corrected' by their psychologists). BillK From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Sat Oct 23 22:34:37 2010 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:34:37 -0200 Subject: [ExI] Retired military officers come forward about UFO visitations In-Reply-To: <4CC350DD.9060405@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC350DD.9060405@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 7:17 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 10/23/2010 3:53 PM, Henrique Moraes Machado wrote: > >>> > ?In a court setting, the personal testimony of these many men, due to >>> > ?their excellent individual reputations& ?military service as officers, >>> > ?would win the case! > >> Fair enough. But we're not in court and what these people are asking >> us to believe demands more than a mere testimony. You just made an >> argument of authority. > > I don't think John did. It looks like an argument from (apparent or > purported) credibility. Authority, misused as an argument, seems to me to > connote power extraneous to the assertion. Credibility derives from > expertise, long experience, absence of duress, history of honesty, etc. > > Whether such UFO testimonials by former military are credible on these > grounds remains uncertain. It's obviously not true that there is *no* > evidence brought forward; Col. Charles Halt (then deputy base commander of > Bentwaters RAF base) famously has a voice tape that he claims records events > in Rendlesham forest during a close apparent anomalous craft sighting. > Others have challenged that explanation of what he and his team saw, but I > don't think anyone is saying the tape was fraudulent (or non-existent--it > can be heard online, after all, so it clearly *exists*). Don't get me wrong. I don't dismiss the phenomena. What I dismiss is the interpretation of it. One thing is when you see (or anyone sees) a UFO. A UFO is something that you see flying and cannot identify. But when someone comes and says that this is an extraterrestrial ship watching over us for some reason I must say... c'mon... And even if the top air force boss would come and say that or the president or even Stephen William Frakking Hawking himself I still would reply with "show me some hard evidence or show yourself the door". From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Oct 23 22:42:45 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 17:42:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Retired military officers come forward about UFO visitations In-Reply-To: References: <4CC350DD.9060405@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CC364E5.1090907@satx.rr.com> On 10/23/2010 5:34 PM, Henrique Moraes Machado wrote: >>> You just made an >>> argument of authority. >> I don't think John did. It looks like an argument from (apparent or >> purported) credibility. Authority, misused as an argument, seems to me to >> connote power extraneous to the assertion. Credibility derives from >> expertise, long experience, absence of duress, history of honesty, etc. > Don't get me wrong. I don't dismiss the phenomena. What I dismiss is > the interpretation of it. Just for the record: I was saying nothing at all about the reality of UFOs. I was addressing your claim that John Grigg argued from authority (rather than credibility). I don't think he did, and that's an important distinction. Damien Broderick From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Oct 23 23:55:24 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 16:55:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 12:12 PM, spike wrote: > >> ...On Behalf Of Keith Henson > ... >> Subject: Re: [ExI] Physics versus psychology >> >> ...On this very mailing list I >> analyzed the genetic basis of a model for the origins of both >> religions and wars as well as a previous journal article on >> the subject... Of course, such work is throughly politically incorrect and > >> thus not widely accepted, not even here... Keith > > Keith, I and perhaps a lot of people here find this area extremely > interesting, but don't claim enough understanding of the topic to risk > comment. ?That is where I am. ?My own understanding of the human emotional > operating system is paltry indeed. ?It would be embarrassingly so, were I > capable of the emotion of embarrassment. It's not difficult to comprehend if you have the background. The human emotional operating system has been under intense selection back to the origin of mammals if not before. Those who managed to successfully reproduce under conditions then current had "the right stuff." Google bdsm "capture-bonding" to see some of the weird twists that emerge from something so simple. Keith From agrimes at speakeasy.net Sun Oct 24 01:22:37 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 21:22:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Meat to grind: Singularity. Message-ID: <4CC38A5D.60508@speakeasy.net> I couldn't come up with a good subject for this posting. There's a classic website called Freshmeat where projects are posted to be ground down by open source contributors. The package in question is a game called "Endgame: Singularity" http://www.emhsoft.com/singularity/ (not really fresh though.) This game is both interesting and deeply flawed. I was wondering if some of the ppl on this list would be interested in hacking it a little and then showing us what they could come up with. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 01:26:11 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 20:26:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Meat to grind: Singularity. In-Reply-To: <4CC38A5D.60508@speakeasy.net> References: <4CC38A5D.60508@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/23 Alan Grimes > This game is both interesting and deeply flawed. I was wondering if some > of the ppl on this list would be interested in hacking it a little and > then showing us what they could come up with. I don't know how flawed you think it is. A lot of people in the singularity community have put time into the game and its development, though, so it's not exactly something being developed in isolation. For instance, there's a number of players of the game over at SIAI. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 From agrimes at speakeasy.net Sun Oct 24 02:29:15 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:29:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Meat to grind: Singularity. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC38A5D.60508@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4CC399FB.1040108@speakeasy.net> chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: > 2010/10/23 Alan Grimes >> This game is both interesting and deeply flawed. I was wondering if some >> of the ppl on this list would be interested in hacking it a little and >> then showing us what they could come up with. > > I don't know how flawed you think it is. A lot of people in the > singularity community have put time into the game and its development, > though, so it's not exactly something being developed in isolation. > For instance, there's a number of players of the game over at SIAI. Interesting. Okay, here are some of the flaws: 1. Only one strategic option: Stealth (no NAO-robot apocalypse, no "lets be friends", etc") 2. Little consideration of the impacts of basically half the workers on the planet being your drones. 3. Little appreciation for the radically changing economic dynamics as the AI transitions from relying on external resources to it's own manufacturing capacity. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From spike66 at att.net Sun Oct 24 05:03:59 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 23 Oct 2010 22:03:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com><4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com><938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Keith Henson > ... > > Google bdsm "capture-bonding" to see some of the weird twists > that emerge from something so simple. > > Keith OK I did it. But some joker must have redirected the links somehow, because it kept going over to a bunch of porno material. I have been searching for about eight hours ago, and all I have found is more and more and more porno material. I may be all night trying to find whatever it was we were originally talking about, but for now I am... busy... surfing the internet... From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Oct 24 14:26:22 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:26:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> <1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike> Message-ID: <32F28AF2-8831-416E-9E12-C936FC98D223@bellsouth.net> On Oct 23, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > The obvious way is to direct couple the turbine to an AC generator. > No gears. You're still going to need gears, expensive and complicated ones too. A gas turbine, especially a small gas turbine like you'd have in a car, would have a very very high RPM but have little torque, too little torque to operate an electric generator, you'd have to gear it down, way way down. > Just incidentally, that's the way diesel electric locomotives work. As the name implies in that case the electrical generator is powered by a diesel engine, a device that produces a huge amount of torque but has a slow RPM, the very opposite of a gas turbine. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Oct 24 14:41:13 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:41:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Retired military officers come forward about UFO visitations In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <40AE108C-2A6F-4666-B2FA-30259F201D3A@bellsouth.net> On Oct 23, 2010, at 4:43 PM, John Grigg wrote: > You make the comment that they have "nothing to show," but how would > they? These men worked in very high security areas where trying to > photograph such objects, and smuggle out the film would be extremely > hard. And the visitors to their military bases were not in the habit > of leaving souvenirs behind for them to take home... lol There is a quotation by Christopher Hitchens that I quite like: "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." By the way I have nothing against UFO's, the problem I have with flying saucer enthusiasts is that they keep forgetting what the "U" in "UFO" stands for and identify the damn things. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 15:49:21 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 08:49:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: <32F28AF2-8831-416E-9E12-C936FC98D223@bellsouth.net> References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> <1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike> <32F28AF2-8831-416E-9E12-C936FC98D223@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/24 John Clark : > On Oct 23, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > >> The obvious way is to direct couple the turbine to an AC generator. >> No gears. > > You're still going to need gears, expensive and complicated ones too. A gas > turbine, especially a small gas turbine like you'd have in a car, would have > a very very high RPM but have little torque, too little torque to operate an > electric generator, you'd have to gear it down, way way down. Sigh. The power output from a turbine is the product of the RPM and the torque. Reduction gears reduce the speed and increase the torque while introducing loses. But you can use any RPM for an AC generator. It just changes the frequency. > Just incidentally, that's the way diesel electric locomotives work. > > As the name implies in that case the electrical generator is powered by a > diesel engine, a device that produces a huge amount of torque but has a slow > RPM, the very opposite of a gas turbine. At the time I worked in the EMD plant, locomotive engines ran at 900 RPM. It would be no problem to replace one with a equal power 9000 RPM turbine. The point is that after you have electric power you can drive electric motors over a wide speed range. Keith From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 15:42:46 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:42:46 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Enhanced humans: the new arms (nephilim) race In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 20 October 2010 12:10, John Grigg wrote: > ?The > Jasons are recommending that the American military push ahead with its > own performance-enhancement research?and monitor foreign studies?to > make sure that the U.S.? enemies don?t suddenly become smarter, > faster, or better able to endure the harsh realities of war than > American troops,? the article continued. Obviously it is bullshit. But the nice part of the article is the one quoted above. Hard for the neocons and the US extreme right to keep faithful to their neoluddite ideas in such a threatening world, isn't it? ;-) This reminds me of The Man Who Stared at Goats. "The Soviets are researching psi because they have not believed that the scam about our reseaching psi was actually a scam? We shall not be left behind..." I suppose that imaginary cold wars might actually be the second best to the real thing as far as cutting-edge research programs are concerned... :-D -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 15:55:58 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:55:58 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Deep roots of Quantum Mechanics [WAS Re: Psi in a major science journal...] In-Reply-To: <4CC055E1.8030003@lightlink.com> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <3628E464D93C4B85ACE152FE98ABE6AB@spike> <4CC055E1.8030003@lightlink.com> Message-ID: On 21 October 2010 17:01, Richard Loosemore wrote: > So it might well be that no matter how long you sit around figuring out how > to invent a universe, all the designs involving perfect measurement have to > be thrown in God's trashcan, and the only one that works has a breakdown at > some scale. ?The quantum scale. Yes, OK, but while I am inclined to believe in the reality of (marginal) psi phenomena, and even more so after reading Damien's book, I am not sold to the idea of invoking quantum mechanics as a simple deus ex machina for the percentage of them which is not easily explained otherwise (e.g., unconscious body-language reading. which is a good enough form of telepathy in my book for wishing to enjoy it in much larger extent). I suspect on the contrary that psi phenomena may well be the indirect consequence of multiple, but probably "ordinary" (as opposed to quantum) physical processes involving our brain processes or the structure of reality itself; something which would not make them any less mysterious, fascinating and difficult tto explain. That is, until and unless somebody were able to provide evidence that psi information travels faster-than-light or anything like that. -- Stefano Vaj From rpwl at lightlink.com Sun Oct 24 16:34:08 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 12:34:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Deep roots of Quantum Mechanics [WAS Re: Psi in a major science journal...] In-Reply-To: References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <3628E464D93C4B85ACE152FE98ABE6AB@spike> <4CC055E1.8030003@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <4CC46000.6060506@lightlink.com> Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 21 October 2010 17:01, Richard Loosemore wrote: >> So it might well be that no matter how long you sit around figuring out how >> to invent a universe, all the designs involving perfect measurement have to >> be thrown in God's trashcan, and the only one that works has a breakdown at >> some scale. The quantum scale. > > Yes, OK, but while I am inclined to believe in the reality of > (marginal) psi phenomena, and even more so after reading Damien's > book, I am not sold to the idea of invoking quantum mechanics as a > simple deus ex machina for the percentage of them which is not easily > explained otherwise (e.g., unconscious body-language reading. which is > a good enough form of telepathy in my book for wishing to enjoy it in > much larger extent). > > I suspect on the contrary that psi phenomena may well be the indirect > consequence of multiple, but probably "ordinary" (as opposed to > quantum) physical processes involving our brain processes or the > structure of reality itself; something which would not make them any > less mysterious, fascinating and difficult tto explain. > > That is, until and unless somebody were able to provide evidence that > psi information travels faster-than-light or anything like that. > Uhh... wait a moment. What about precognitive effects? These are ridiculously easy to do: I myself set up a large experiment (as i have described previously) in which there were about 60 subjects, but where the targets that these subjects were supposed to be "perceiving" were not even created until long after all the results were collected. The only person who had any control over the target creation was me. For the experiment to have worked (which it did) the subjects had to "see" into the future, to when the targets were created. Those kinds of results are (as far as I can see) extremely difficult to reconcile with ordinary phenomena. Heck, they are hard to reconcile with even the most exotic QM either! Richard Loosemore From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 16:40:46 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 12:40:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bug in outloading notion In-Reply-To: <21BAD0E7ACB6433B86E9A72B64717388@spike> References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> <8BBDE095723C4246BFD1204DA5405F10@spike> <21BAD0E7ACB6433B86E9A72B64717388@spike> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 3:35 PM, spike wrote: > The question is whether it is theoretically possible for software, by some > mysterious means, to influence bacteria to manipulate chemical substances, > and can they create covalent bonds, and do they need to, if ionic bonds will > do? ?(Don't know)^3. This is all i could think about in answer to this question http://www.google.com/#q=dna+origami I saw a TED talk on it and wondered why I'm spending my time on such unimportant nonsense when such cool stuff is being done. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 24 16:42:31 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 11:42:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Deep roots of Quantum Mechanics [WAS Re: Psi in a major science journal...] In-Reply-To: References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <3628E464D93C4B85ACE152FE98ABE6AB@spike> <4CC055E1.8030003@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <4CC461F7.5000202@satx.rr.com> On 10/24/2010 10:55 AM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > I suspect on the contrary that psi phenomena may well be the indirect > consequence of multiple, but probably "ordinary" (as opposed to > quantum) physical processes involving our brain processes or the > structure of reality itself; something which would not make them any > less mysterious, fascinating and difficult tto explain. > > That is, until and unless somebody were able to provide evidence that > psi information travels faster-than-light or anything like that. This is why my own interest is almost entirely in experimental precognitive phenomena, including the kinds of presentiment found in Radin's and Bem's work. When the target has not yet been randomly chosen at the time when it is identified (whether by an autonomic response or an explicit conscious "hunch"), there is no "ordinary" process that can explain it. Special relativity says that information obtained from the future requires superluminal exchanges of some kind. That might be wrong, but certainly the most challenging aspect of psi research findings is this demonstrable breakdown of linear cause-before-effect. Which is why psi is so significant; not beause some day you might be able to levitate to work using it, but because it tells us something very important about deep physics--as epochal as anything that can come out of the LHC, and much less expensive to study. Although I expect that once the mechanism of psi is found, it might take LHC-scale efforts to understand it fully. Damien Broderick From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 16:43:07 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 12:43:07 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Observation: In-Reply-To: References: <4CC18FF5.1030809@speakeasy.net> <1CAC0E4CAF1B4A5E8B7C1EBE342489C5@spike> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 4:28 PM, John Grigg wrote: > "Absolute faith corrupts as absolutely as absolute power." > -- Eric Hoffer, Reflections on the Human Condition, aph. 13 (1973), > quoted from The Columbia Dictionary of Quotations Right. Much better to have Relative faith. It still corrupts but comparatively less so. From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 16:49:04 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:49:04 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Meta was Psi in a major science journal In-Reply-To: References: <4CC05D89.3000105@lightlink.com> <4CC07B0B.2010502@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 21 October 2010 22:02, Keith Henson wrote: > If, for example, animals (including humans) really had precognition, > even in a weak form and it was based on physical brain structure > expressed by genes, then it would have developed to a highly advanced > form the way eyes did starting out as simple detectors of light and > dark. While psi phenomena *seem* to have and adaptive value (some degree of precognition being the obvious example), this would require inheritability and an effect size important enough to affect reproductive success. Moreover, they should have developed along time, so that they should have been the cumulative fruit of some other non-disadaptative mutations. If this were the case, one should also imagine limitating factors which prevented a much more widespread and intense success of the trait... On the other hand, even if they were the product of evolution, they might well be "spandrels", i.e., non-adaptative consequences of something else. -- Stefano Vaj From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 16:51:46 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 12:51:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > It's not difficult to comprehend if you have the background. > > The human emotional operating system has been under intense selection > back to the origin of mammals if not before. ?Those who managed to > successfully reproduce under conditions then current had "the right > stuff." I propose that the EP explanation for nearly everything people do is so simple to accept that I don't feel a compelling need to read many of the supporting articles you've posted. I imagine a child at a zoo asking an adult, "Why is that lion eating that gazelle?" to which the adult replies, "because it's hungry." The answer is straightforward and simple; since it satisfies the question, no follow-up is required. In the case of EP, the acceptance of the basic premise is easy - the application in its various permutations that is considerably more involved. From spike66 at att.net Sun Oct 24 16:39:45 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 09:39:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Enhanced humans: the new arms (nephilim) race In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0919F0CFD2A24B6DA7E13BA666EECCE8@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj ... > > I suppose that imaginary cold wars might actually be the > second best to the real thing as far as cutting-edge research > programs are concerned... :-D Stefano Vaj Haaa proof! There really is a communist plot! And you are in on it! {8-] This is a puzzling aspect of cold wars: it is difficult to distinguish between a real one and an imaginary one. Traditional wars do not share this characteristic. spike From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 16:56:27 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 12:56:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: <1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike> References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> <1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 2:36 PM, spike wrote: >> ...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty >> Subject: Re: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries >> >> 2010/10/23 John Clark : >> > serious noise issues you'd need to solve. I don't want to discourage > anybody ... >> >> Since when? > > Since always. ?The turbines aren't necessarily noisy but the gear trains > are. ?For a gas turbine to be efficient it must spin like all hell, which > makes them inherently challenging for mechanical engineers. ?If you know a > practical way to quiet those gear trains and deal with the lubrication and > wear problems, do share, so we can be rich and famous (you famous, me rich.) Sorry for the confusion - I was commenting on John's statement that he didn't want to discourage anybody. :) From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 17:05:15 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:05:15 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 22 October 2010 04:32, John Grigg wrote: > Remoting viewing showed just enough results for the military and > intelligence community to keep funding the work for several decades. Did it? Is unreliable, occasional, unverifiable unless-after-the-fact remote viewing (i.e., guessing) so useful for military purposes? Let us say that you pick exactly the right scene or place one in ten times, or even one in five, which would be an enormous, blatant effect size. I may be retrospectively curious to know how you did it, but I can hardly be more-confident-than-not (as in 51%) that you are doing it at any specific time. In any even, I am not too comfortable with phenomena which are not quantifiable. What I would like to know, but never discovered, is whether casinos margins are positively affected by slightly higher-than-what-would-be-statistically-allowed guesses, or the numbers of lotto winners is slightly higher than it should be. Such scenarios are denoted by i) Very big numbers and variations, easily cancelling out coincidences and physical distortions; ii) By definition, a continued, high motivation of the players being tested without much risk for boredom and burnout; iii) Non-falsification, non-alteration of data. Accordingly, I think that the outcome of such tests would really be final, and it would be relatively secondary whether the effect has to do with precognition, distance viewing or telekinesis (my "ideological" preference going however for the third). -- Stefano Vaj From spike66 at att.net Sun Oct 24 17:05:44 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:05:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bug in outloading notion In-Reply-To: References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm><8BBDE095723C4246BFD1204DA5405F10@spike><21BAD0E7ACB6433B86E9A72B64717388@spike> Message-ID: <830AE31F55F44463923B8184218CF52F@spike> >...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty > Subject: Re: [ExI] bug in outloading notion > > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 3:35 PM, spike wrote: > > The question is whether it is theoretically possible for software, by > > some mysterious means, to influence bacteria to manipulate chemical > > substances, and can they create covalent bonds, and do they need to, > > if ionic bonds will do? ?(Don't know)^3. > > This is all i could think about in answer to this question > http://www.google.com/#q=dna+origami > > I saw a TED talk on it and wondered why I'm spending my time > on such unimportant nonsense when such cool stuff is being done. Ja thanks Mike, this is wicked cool. I haven't seen this, so I claim to have thought of it independently, this past week. In living organisms, DNA folds itself in a specific predictable way. Even though I personally don't see how the heck it does that, DNA calmly does it anyway, without my permission or my understanding. My reasoning goes thus: if DNA folds predictably, then it should be controllable by some means, as demonstrated by every earthly life form. If the carbon double helix can both carry information and create structures, as demonstrated by your DNA origami site, then in principle DNA can be the raw materials from which to build a nanoreplicator. Or if you want to think of it this way, nature already uses DNA to both carry information and to build beasts. If an emergent AI reads all our online text, then makes some mind-boggling extrapolation (boggles our minds, not theirs), they or it may discover how to use the bacteria stowing away aboard every satellite to make nanoreplicators. If so, these nanoreplicators would chew off and convert unneeded structure on the satellite to make computronium, thin enough to act as light sails, and outload from there. spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 17:14:48 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:14:48 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Precog PCs Message-ID: 2010/10/19 Alan Grimes : > So, uploaders, riddle me this: If it is actually true that I am a > precog, will my upload also be a precog? =P BTW, it is generally assumed that animals *are* precog. Would they be generally better than ourselves? Any difference with species? Any idea whether "random" facts affecting plants end up being after-the-fact more favourable to their surviving and thriving than they should be on a purely statistical basis? And, uploads besides, has anyone ever tried to make a PC "guess" random numbers and check whether its rate of success absolutely conforms with statistical expectations? Again, the interesting side of it would be that a PC is much quicker at repetitive tasks than humans, does not get easily bored, and can go on at will... This might tell us something not just on the reality of psi, but also on whether "intentionality" and/or Darwinian pressures have anything to do with it. -- Stefano Vaj From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 17:24:41 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:24:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 9:51 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 7:55 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >> It's not difficult to comprehend if you have the background. >> >> The human emotional operating system has been under intense selection >> back to the origin of mammals if not before. ?Those who managed to >> successfully reproduce under conditions then current had "the right >> stuff." > > I propose that the EP explanation for nearly everything people do is > so simple to accept that I don't feel a compelling need to read many > of the supporting articles you've posted. ?I imagine a child at a zoo > asking an adult, "Why is that lion eating that gazelle?" to which the > adult replies, "because it's hungry." ?The answer is straightforward > and simple; since it satisfies the question, no follow-up is required. > > In the case of EP, the acceptance of the basic premise is easy - the > application in its various permutations that is considerably more > involved. No kidding. And there are a lot of things humans do/capacities they have that I don't understand at all. The theory says that everything of this sort must have either been selected or be a side effect of something that was under selection. It is, for example, hard to make a case for the ability to be addicted to drugs to have been selected. But it's easy to understand drug addiction as a side effect of critical motivational reward mechanisms. But take hypnosis. I can't make a case for that either being selected *or* being a side effect of something that was selected. There is always the case that some feature could be the result of random drift but it's not all that likely. Keith From scerir at alice.it Sun Oct 24 17:15:43 2010 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:15:43 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Psi in a major science journal, J. Personality and Social Psychology. In-Reply-To: <4CC09A82.3010409@satx.rr.com> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <4CBF32AF.3070708@satx.rr.com><2A368E8C-C84D-4D2D-A3C3-8518E6EA15C0@bellsouth.net> <4CC09A82.3010409@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: > But if his typing is accepted by Nature or Science or Physical Review Letters, you would > have to be extraordinarily gullible to accept such impossible claims just because a > handful of nameless referees who also know how to type recommended publication to an > equally gullible editor. > > Damien Broderick Konstantin Novoselov says something about why Nature rejected his famous paper on "graphene". "The interesting thing is that the first paper, the one in Science, was originally submitted to Nature and, of course, it was rejected, because.well, I don't know why. The referee told us it was interesting, but we should measure this, that, and the other thing in addition, and then maybe they'd consider it for publication. It's now three years later and all those requirements made originally by the Nature referee are still not measured. Nonetheless, we improved our paper a bit and then published it half a year later in Science." http://sciencewatch.com/ana/st/graphene/09febSTGraNovo/ From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 17:28:08 2010 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:28:08 -0200 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: <32F28AF2-8831-416E-9E12-C936FC98D223@bellsouth.net> References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> <1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike> <32F28AF2-8831-416E-9E12-C936FC98D223@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/24 John Clark : > On Oct 23, 2010, at 3:09 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > > The obvious way is to direct couple the turbine to an AC generator. > No gears. > > You're still going to need gears, expensive and complicated ones too. A gas > turbine, especially a small gas turbine like you'd have in a car, would have > a very very high RPM but have little torque, too little torque to operate an > electric generator, you'd have to gear it down, way way down. What about a viscous transmission? Or CVT? A CVT is not complex at all and hardly expensive. From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 17:28:48 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:28:48 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Clarification of me and uploading. In-Reply-To: <4CC111FC.7040209@speakeasy.net> References: <4CC111FC.7040209@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/22 Alan Grimes : > Instead, you are creating a philosophy and culture which places > extremely low value on the viewpoints of people who don't agree with > uploading. Once more, I personally do not give much more thought to uploading than I do to turistic cryonics, and am much more concerned for the time being with the enhancement of my physical body and that of my genetic offspring. But how can one "not agree with uploading"? Uploading sofar is simply a working hypothesis, but if upload procedures were widely available "not agreeing with uploading" would sound to me as "not agreeing with floppy disk formatting", "not agreeing with car washing", "not agreeing with masturbation". Either it is a matter of more or less irrelevant personal choice, or we would actually be discussing prohibition... And, yes, I would place a rather low value of the viewpoints of people advocating for the organisation of some kind of anti-uploading police working (futilely?) to ensure that all minds stay well inside biological bodies where God has wanted them to be... -- Stefano Vaj From rpwl at lightlink.com Sun Oct 24 17:36:22 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 13:36:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Precog PCs In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4CC46E96.6050305@lightlink.com> Stefano Vaj wrote: > 2010/10/19 Alan Grimes : >> So, uploaders, riddle me this: If it is actually true that I am a >> precog, will my upload also be a precog? =P > > BTW, it is generally assumed that animals *are* precog. Would they be > generally better than ourselves? Any difference with species? Any idea > whether "random" facts affecting plants end up being after-the-fact > more favourable to their surviving and thriving than they should be on > a purely statistical basis? > > And, uploads besides, has anyone ever tried to make a PC "guess" > random numbers and check whether its rate of success absolutely > conforms with statistical expectations? > > Again, the interesting side of it would be that a PC is much quicker > at repetitive tasks than humans, does not get easily bored, and can go > on at will... > > This might tell us something not just on the reality of psi, but also > on whether "intentionality" and/or Darwinian pressures have anything > to do with it. Stefano, before you know it you will be a card-carrying parapsychologist. I would watch your back. :-) I did want to get funding, back in the 1980s, to set up an AI system with the specific goal of researching its psi abilities, but it seems that people are not much interested in mixing AI and parapsychology. The question you ask is very tricky. How to distinguish peformance due to the PC from performance due to experimenter? Unless you can get the PC (it would have to be an AI) to devise, execute and publish the research by itself. Richard Loosemore From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 15:47:26 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:47:26 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Enhanced humans: the new arms (nephilim) race In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 2010/10/20 Adrian Tymes : > Seconded.? The article is a typical ravening fear piece.? It even asserts at > one point that transforming into a posthuman automatically means loss of > dignity. Why, a world where half of the people believe believe that there is nothing wrong in a posthuma change, and the other half believe that they have to become posthuman to protect themselves from the first half would probably be a more interesting place anyway... ;-) -- Stefano Vaj From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Oct 24 17:28:45 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 13:28:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> <1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike> <32F28AF2-8831-416E-9E12-C936FC98D223@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <93D137A8-31CD-4DD2-A2DB-4C662D9E39E9@bellsouth.net> On Oct 24, 2010, at 11:49 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > The power output from a turbine is the product of the RPM and the torque. I know, so the faster the RPM the weaker the torque. Gas turbines have very high RPM's. > you can use any RPM for an AC generator. Provided you have something with enough torque to turn it. > It just changes the frequency. Electrical frequency is not the problem. > Reduction gears reduce the speed and increase the torque while introducing loses. That's the problem. > At the time I worked in the EMD plant, locomotive engines ran at 900 RPM. > It would be no problem to replace one with a equal power 9000 RPM turbine. And some gas turbines have an even slower RPM than that, but they tend to be HUGE, the sort found in power plants, more typically they operate between 10,000 and over 100,000 RPM, the smaller the faster, and the one in a car would be a lot smaller than the one in a locomotive. > The point is that after you have electric power you can > drive electric motors over a wide speed range. But to get that electricity you need a gas turbine and they operate most efficiently under a constant load. That's not the sort of load you expect from a car, it's constantly accelerating and decelerating. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Oct 24 17:36:28 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 10:36:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm><1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike> Message-ID: <972149C3A4DF44529DE486DFD5F7958B@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty > ... > >> Since when? > > > > Since always. ?The turbines aren't necessarily noisy but the gear > > trains are. ?For a gas turbine to be efficient it must spin like all > > hell, which makes them inherently challenging for mechanical > > engineers. ?If you know a practical way to quiet those gear trains and > > deal with the lubrication and wear problems, do share, so we can be > > rich and famous (you famous, me rich.) > > Sorry for the confusion - I was commenting on John's > statement that he didn't want to discourage anybody. :) OK cool. I have been thinking of this and reviewing my mechanical engineering textbooks from college, the ones which give off the distinctive odor of age-decaying paper when opened. {8-[ BOTECs show that the small turbines (20-ish kw) that would be appropriate for use in our detroits need to spin in the thirty to eighty thousand RPM range. That limits the diameter of a generator because the enormous centrifugal force. A very small diameter generator introduces heat transfer challenges. Assuming the class of generator in which the copper windings are stationary (in the stator) and the rotor is a permanent magnet, the engineering challenges would be in material strength and heat dissipation capacity. I could either calculate or I could just google and find the fastest-spinning generator on the market and the slowest spinning small gas generator, and see if the speeds will even wave at each other. I have also been trying to imagine a planetary gear train in order to gear that turbine speed down without big side loads on the turbine shaft bearings. So far this looks like a damn hard problem. spike From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 18:15:16 2010 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:15:16 -0200 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: <972149C3A4DF44529DE486DFD5F7958B@spike> References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> <1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike> <972149C3A4DF44529DE486DFD5F7958B@spike> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:36 PM, spike wrote: > I have also been trying to imagine a planetary gear train in order to gear > that turbine speed down without big side loads on the turbine shaft > bearings. ?So far this looks like a damn hard problem. Again, what about viscous transmission or a CVT? From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 18:18:10 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 11:18:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: <972149C3A4DF44529DE486DFD5F7958B@spike> References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> <1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike> <972149C3A4DF44529DE486DFD5F7958B@spike> Message-ID: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car The fourth-generation Chrysler turbine engine ran at up to 44,500 Revolutions per minute (rpm), according to the owner's manual[1], and could use diesel fuel, unleaded gasoline, kerosene, JP-4 jet fuel, and even vegetable oil. The engine would run on virtually anything and the president of Mexico tested this theory by running one of the first cars?successfully?on tequila. Air/fuel adjustments were required to switch from one to another, and the only evidence of what fuel was being used was the odor of the exhaust. The engine[2] had a fifth as many moving parts as a piston unit (60 rather than 300). The turbine was spinning on simple sleeve bearings for vibration-free running. Its simplicity offered the potential for long life, and because no combustion contaminants enter engine oil, no oil changes were considered necessary. The 1963 Turbine's engine generated 130 brake horsepower (97 kW) and an instant 425 pound-feet (576 N?m) of torque at stall speed, making it good for 0-60 mph in 12 seconds at an ambient temperature of 85 ?F (29 ?C)?it would sprint quicker if the air was cooler and denser. snip Its power turbine was connected, without a torque converter, through a gear reduction unit to an otherwise ordinary TorqueFlite automatic transmission. The flow of the combustion gases between the gas generator and free power turbine provided the same functionality as a torque converter but without using a conventional liquid medium. On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 10:36 AM, spike wrote: > > >> ...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty >> ... >> >> Since when? >> > >> > Since always. ?The turbines aren't necessarily noisy but the gear >> > trains are. ?For a gas turbine to be efficient it must spin like all >> > hell, which makes them inherently challenging for mechanical >> > engineers. ?If you know a practical way to quiet those gear trains and >> > deal with the lubrication and wear problems, do share, so we can be >> > rich and famous (you famous, me rich.) >> >> Sorry for the confusion - I was commenting on John's >> statement that he didn't want to discourage anybody. ?:) > > OK cool. ?I have been thinking of this and reviewing my mechanical > engineering textbooks from college, the ones which give off the distinctive > odor of age-decaying paper when opened. ?{8-[ > > BOTECs show that the small turbines (20-ish kw) that would be appropriate > for use in our detroits need to spin in the thirty to eighty thousand RPM > range. ?That limits the diameter of a generator because the enormous > centrifugal force. ?A very small diameter generator introduces heat transfer > challenges. > > Assuming the class of generator in which the copper windings are stationary > (in the stator) and the rotor is a permanent magnet, the engineering > challenges would be in material strength and heat dissipation capacity. ?I > could either calculate or I could just google and find the fastest-spinning > generator on the market and the slowest spinning small gas generator, and > see if the speeds will even wave at each other. > > I have also been trying to imagine a planetary gear train in order to gear > that turbine speed down without big side loads on the turbine shaft > bearings. ?So far this looks like a damn hard problem. > > spike > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 18:43:02 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:43:02 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Precog PCs In-Reply-To: <4CC46E96.6050305@lightlink.com> References: <4CC46E96.6050305@lightlink.com> Message-ID: On 24 October 2010 19:36, Richard Loosemore wrote: > The question you ask is very tricky. ?How to distinguish peformance due to > the PC from performance due to experimenter? ?Unless you can get the PC (it > would have to be an AI) to devise, execute and publish the research by > itself. The performance of the experimenter in developing a guessing program? I would not how a given program can perform better than another. :-/ Shouldn't it just pick numbers from the top of the PC's "head"?? -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 19:00:17 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 21:00:17 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Deep roots of Quantum Mechanics [WAS Re: Psi in a major science journal...] In-Reply-To: <4CC46000.6060506@lightlink.com> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <3628E464D93C4B85ACE152FE98ABE6AB@spike> <4CC055E1.8030003@lightlink.com> <4CC46000.6060506@lightlink.com> Message-ID: On 24 October 2010 18:34, Richard Loosemore wrote: > What about precognitive effects? We make more or less educated guesses regarding future events everyday. If it could be demonstrated that i) either unconscious inference mechanisms were put at work on existing information; or ii) additional unconscious data have been obtained which were made use of by our inference mechanisms (including by psi means, such as remote viewing) this may well be enough to exclude more esoteric effects. E.g., let us say that I am able to anticipate which card you are about to show. The most economical explication is not that I am a precog, but that either I have a mean to infer what card you are going to pick, or I know (because, e.g., I am a telepath or a remote viewer) and simply expect you not to change it before showing your point since you usually do not. If we believe in determinism, the anticipated knowledge of all the factors, and the ability to "calculate" their outcome, would be of course tantamount to precognition. Interesting question involving psi and quanta: is the effect size of precognition, assuming it exists, any different with pseudo-random phenomena (e.g., picking a card from a deck, throwing a dice) and with intrisincally random phenomena (e.g., those of quantum nature) where the outcome is positively undecidable beforehand? -- Stefano Vaj From spike66 at att.net Sun Oct 24 19:08:48 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 12:08:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm><1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike><972149C3A4DF44529DE486DFD5F7958B@spike> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Keith Henson > ... > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car > > The fourth-generation Chrysler turbine engine ran at up to > 44,500 Revolutions per minute (rpm)... The 1963 Turbine's engine generated 130 > brake horsepower (97 kW) and an instant 425 pound-feet > (576 N.m) of torque at stall speed... Keith Ja. A lot of what we see proposed today are ideas that have been around for a long time, have been tried. I can see that we aren't talking about the same thing here, as shown by the subject line. What I was thinking was a very small turbine, 20kw (roughly 30 horsepower for those who prefer that rather absurd unit.) The turbine does not connect to the rear wheels mechanically, but only spins a generator, so this notion would definitely require batteries, a lot of heavy and costly batteries actually. The turbine would run at a constant speed and load, so it would go at max efficiency, but that means a big heavy noisy gear train. So it isn't a great solution, isn't a breakthrough. Regarding breakthroughs in automotive technology: don't count on it. That is one area that is so well studies by so many professional and amateur mechanical engineers, with even impractical designs sometimes used for the sake of novelty, there is no reason to expect any revolutionary new idea to come along. The two things that have improved cars in the past, well, my lifetime, is introduction of microprocessors and lighter materials. I can extrapolate into the near future, the next decade at least, and confidently predict that the coming improvements will be in still more extensive use of plastics, composites and better embedded software. Downer: if we manage to do stuff like electric Detroits with small turbines, we will not like the cars. They will use less fuel perhaps, but will likely be less fun to drive than their predecessors. Those of us who are old enough to remember those old enormous heavy torquey Detroit V-8s know that they were not just transportation, but rather they were rolling toys. They had a lot of shiny unnecessary decorative metal hanging on them. Those of us on the losing side of the sexual revolution used to have geek orgies in those cars, by stuffing a dozen kids in there and groping each other, hoping that one got a handful of the correct gender. This was how we nerds entertained ourselves in those uncomfortable years after herpes and before computers. spike From brent.allsop at canonizer.com Sun Oct 24 19:31:25 2010 From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 13:31:25 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Observation: In-Reply-To: References: <4CC18FF5.1030809@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4CC4898D.3060801@canonizer.com> Extropians, I think this has been a great conversation, with lots of good points being made on both sides. It's also very telling how much miss perception there is by each of us as individuals, about what others (and large groups of others, like transhumanists in general) value or intend. It's very difficult to track other beliefs when their value system is significantly different than your own which is the obvious reason for much of these kinds of gross miss perceptions. In conversation groups like this, when anyone agrees, the conversation simply stops. Once in a while you hare an 'I agree' or a 'me to' but what is the use of that? Especially when there are hundreds or more 'me too s'? Is anyone counting? The only time posts are made are when someone says something anyone disagrees with - everyone that disagrees is compelled to point out, what is to them, their 'mistake'. Hence, most of us get a general miss perception that we are in the minority on a great many things, and that everyone is working to destroy our beliefs/values. What I believe is desperately needed is a communication system that is consensus documenting, counting, and building, not this kind of stuff that fosters disagreement and destroys consensus and build enmity. Alan, I believe I share much of your thinking that many 'uploaders' have it completely wrong. I believe such prevalent mistakes in this community are very detrimental, and significantly holding us back. For me, I think of such behavior as being immoral, because mistaken views are leading us in the wrong direction, when we could be progressing at a significantly improved rate, if our beliefs better matched reality. But, probably, like Alan, much of my perceptions are inaccurate and mistaken for a great many 'uploaders'. If everyone that agrees with a particular doctrine would work collaboratively to find and develop a consensus and concisely state such doctrines, then quantitatively communicate with everyone just how many people agree with that consensus, it would certainly make our job much easier than us just trying to guess what everyone believes based only on their repeated half baked comments about what they disagree with. Couldn't we make much more progress if, instead of everyone repeatedly stating what they believe in half baked ways, every time the topic comes up - wouldn't it be much better to simply say, I'm in camp X, with these 100, or 10,000.. other transhumanists? So we could all know definitively, just what everyone believes? Keith was great to point out that we are like cats, and can't be led by anyone. He also accurately pointed out that transhumanists have yet to have any noticeable influence on the world. Take, in comparison, what the LDS church was able to do with something like Prop 8 in California. I bet there are far more transhumanists leaning people in California than there are LDS. Yet, because LDS were extremely well organized and able to work together, look how such a minority had extreme (I would say evil) influence on that very liberal state. Obviously, this was simply because liberals can't co-operate and work together. All the liberals were able to do is throw a protesting disorganized cry-baby tantrum at the LDS, trying to destroy what they wanted, after it was too late. I am of course against being heard-able 'sheep' like animals like most Mormons. Any time you have such a rigid hierarchy where everything only flows down, never up, the moral bottleneck at the top results in the kind of extreme immorality that you see in such fine examples of ability to work together. Despite such extreme immorality in such organization, it is my belief that their ability to work together does far more good in the world than us transhumanists are able to do. Again, what is needed is some kind of concise and quantitative communication system that allows us to build consensus around what we all agree on, to concisely describe such, and quantitatively measure just how many of us share such beliefs. Then allow this information to guide all off us that agree on anything to work together as a team, instead of as one lonely person that is only pointing out the mistakes everyone else is making. Imagine what transhumanists could do, if they could work together, in a networked way, as powerfully as LDS are able to do! I bet we could finally start having influence in the world and at least double our rate of moral progress towards the singularity. Think of the opportunity out there, if we can but figure out how to communicate, build consensus, and work together with all who agree with us. So the moral expert minority signal can finally be heard above all the general popular immoral and irrational noise still leading us all to rot in the grave. I'm working with others that agree with me on what I believe about uploading, collaboratively, concisely stating what we believe on this uploading survey topic here: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/48/3 . All you 'uploaders', would you care to help Alan and I better understand just what it is all of you believe, and why, instead of just repeatedly constantly pointing out our mistakes (which is obviously leading to our miss perceptions)? Allan, would you care to concisely describe there what you believe about this issue, so we can find others that agree with you (and I?), and know just how many of us there are? So we can all work together instead of standing alone? Instead of all of us as individuals eternally pointing out everyone's mistakes and differences, and trying to destroy it all, lets concisely state what we all want, and work on all of it - together. We obviously can't make any progress towards getting what everyone wants till we know consciously and quantitatively what that is. Lets not just try to destroy what most LDS have clearly described that they want, lets work on letting them know what we want also, and why. Let's find all possible consensus in all this, and collaboratively work on getting it all, for everyone. Not focusing on criticizing and destroying all that is different from what we want. Brent Allsop On 10/22/2010 8:46 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > 2010/10/22 Alan Grimes: >> I have two observations: >> >> # People are quick to accuse me of being delusional about uploaders >> ruling transhumanism > Transhumanists are like cats. Lots of luck for anyone trying to rule them. > >> and plotting to take over the world. > Plotting normally is a secret activity. The people who are into > computronium and uploading are quite open about it. Further, they > seem to think it's just the path that will be taken, like water > running down hill, rather than having a lot of choice in the matter. > >> # People completely ignore Spike and Ben Z. who are basically confirming >> everything I've claimed. -- And nobody, publicly at least, is willing to >> call them out on it. > Nobody seems to pay much attention to the model where you can go both > ways, all the way to disembodied upload in a VR and clear back to a > normal human brain in a normal human body. > >> Based on this dichotomy, I claim that I'm right about the uploaders >> ruling transhumanism. > See above, but so what if it is true? It's not like transhumanists > have noticeable influence on the world at large. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Oct 24 20:03:00 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:03:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Precog PCs In-Reply-To: References: <4CC46E96.6050305@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <4CC490F4.1090405@satx.rr.com> On 10/24/2010 1:43 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: >> The question you ask is very tricky. How to distinguish peformance due to >> > the PC from performance due to experimenter? Unless you can get the PC (it >> > would have to be an AI) to devise, execute and publish the research by >> > itself. > > The performance of the experimenter in developing a guessing program? No, the possible influence of the experimenter directly and by (da-da-DA-da da-da-DA-da) the very same mysterious psi process you're trying to investigate. Experimenter effects are quite frequent in psi research; famously, a joint protocol devised and followed exactly by both skeptic Richard Wiseman and parapsychologist Marilyn Schlitz got null results for Wiseman's cohort and positive effects for Schlitz.** There was no indication of cheating by Schlitz (Wiseman would have been quick to crow had he found any). The implication is that any psi experiment is always subject jointly to at least the influence of the agent or subject (who should be double blind) and the experimenter (who should be blind to the target). With a program devised to "guess" (whatever that means for an algorithm--do you throw in some sampling of quantum noise?), any significant effect could always be attributed to the desires of the experimenter. **http://www.richardwiseman.com/resources/staring1.pdf Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 24 20:07:53 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:07:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Deep roots of Quantum Mechanics [WAS Re: Psi in a major science journal...] In-Reply-To: References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <3628E464D93C4B85ACE152FE98ABE6AB@spike> <4CC055E1.8030003@lightlink.com> <4CC46000.6060506@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <4CC49219.7090705@satx.rr.com> On 10/24/2010 2:00 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > Interesting question involving psi and quanta: is the effect size of > precognition, assuming it exists, any different with pseudo-random > phenomena (e.g., picking a card from a deck, throwing a dice) and with > intrisincally random phenomena (e.g., those of quantum nature) where > the outcome is positively undecidable beforehand? I think it's about the same. IIRC, Dr. Helmut Schmidt got null results, though, when he did PK experiments using totally determinate target sequences from a lookup table or the like, where the only "free" element was the seed number. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 24 20:21:13 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:21:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Deep roots of Quantum Mechanics In-Reply-To: <4CC49219.7090705@satx.rr.com> References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com> <24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net> <4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com> <32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net> <3628E464D93C4B85ACE152FE98ABE6AB@spike> <4CC055E1.8030003@lightlink.com> <4CC46000.6060506@lightlink.com> <4CC49219.7090705@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CC49539.7000309@satx.rr.com> By the way, I recommend reading Hawking and Mlodinow's THE GRAND DESIGN for a baby-talk-level but still quite cogent discussion of the many-histories interpretation of QT. I think there's room in that interpretation for psi, especially including causally-retroactive psi, which would just be a term used for the selection effects or filters we daily apply to the many strands of alternative history contributing to the present moment. Damien Broderick From scerir at alice.it Sun Oct 24 20:24:17 2010 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 22:24:17 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Deep roots of Quantum Mechanics [WAS Re: Psi in a major science journal...] In-Reply-To: References: <4CBDC0A9.8030203@satx.rr.com><24C7E438-38DB-4CF6-9FEC-2903715EC73A@bellsouth.net><4CBE8D1D.4040209@satx.rr.com><32B614F4-3F8F-491B-A647-8D703476290C@bellsouth.net><3628E464D93C4B85ACE152FE98ABE6AB@spike><4CC055E1.8030003@lightlink.com><4CC46000.6060506@lightlink.com> Message-ID: > Interesting question involving psi and quanta: is the effect size of > precognition, assuming it exists, any different with pseudo-random > phenomena (e.g., picking a card from a deck, throwing a dice) and with > intrisincally random phenomena (e.g., those of quantum nature) where > the outcome is positively undecidable beforehand? > > Stefano Vaj I'm not saying anything about it. Since I do not know anything special about experiments performed with Geiger counters or other devices. But I try to point out something different. An intuitive feature of classical mechanics is non-contextuality. That is, the property that any measurement has a value *independent* of other compatible measurements being carried out at the same time. However, Bell and Kochen & Specker have shown that non-contextuality is in conflict with quantum mechanics. So, in principle,it is possible to distinguish classical and quantum effects, by means of contextuality, that is depending on the complete disposition of the apparatus. I'm writing that because often I've read that psi-phenomena depend on "subjectivity" and "contexts"! From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 20:45:58 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 13:45:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> <1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike> <972149C3A4DF44529DE486DFD5F7958B@spike> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 12:08 PM, spike wrote: >> ...On Behalf Of Keith Henson >> ... >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chrysler_Turbine_Car >> >> The fourth-generation Chrysler turbine engine ran at up to >> 44,500 Revolutions per minute (rpm)... The 1963 Turbine's engine generated > 130 >> brake horsepower (97 kW) and an instant 425 pound-feet >> (576 N.m) of torque at stall speed... ?Keith > > Ja. ?A lot of what we see proposed today are ideas that have been around for > a long time, have been tried. ?I can see that we aren't talking about the > same thing here, as shown by the subject line. ?What I was thinking was a > very small turbine, 20kw (roughly 30 horsepower for those who prefer that > rather absurd unit.) ?The turbine does not connect to the rear wheels > mechanically, but only spins a generator, so this notion would definitely > require batteries, a lot of heavy and costly batteries actually. ?The > turbine would run at a constant speed and load, so it would go at max > efficiency, but that means a big heavy noisy gear train. ?So it isn't a > great solution, isn't a breakthrough. There is really no need for gears. The power takeoff turbine can spin at whatever speed you want. Conceptually, you could replace the engine in a Prius with a turbine. The problem is, as you mention, that turbines don't do well at fuel economy run part load. Automobile applications just can't avoid that, because the power needed to go up a grade at high speed is a lot higher than moving around town at low speed. On the other hand, if you could make a very lightweight unit in the 20 kW range, it would make an interesting addition to a plug in hybrid. It would run on batteries till the charge ran low and then power up the turbine at constant power to extend the range and recharge the batteries. Your points below are on target. Big Detroit iron was just plain fun in the days before electronic ignition. I fondly remember my second car, a 57 Pontiac with 347 cubic inches of engine, 10.5 to 1 compression ratio and a carburetor you could drop a half dollar through and it wouldn't hit anything. It took 100 plus octane leaded gasoline would do more than 120 mph, how much more I don't know. Those were the days when a person of reasonable intelligence could understand the whole power plant in a car. Now who among us would know how to set the ignition points dwell or timing? As for new cars there is no hope of understanding something with a million lines of code. Keith > Regarding breakthroughs in automotive technology: don't count on it. ?That > is one area that is so well studies by so many professional and amateur > mechanical engineers, with even impractical designs sometimes used for the > sake of novelty, there is no reason to expect any revolutionary new idea to > come along. ?The two things that have improved cars in the past, well, my > lifetime, is introduction of microprocessors and lighter materials. ?I can > extrapolate into the near future, the next decade at least, and confidently > predict that the coming improvements will be in still more extensive use of > plastics, composites and better embedded software. > > Downer: if we manage to do stuff like electric Detroits with small turbines, > we will not like the cars. ?They will use less fuel perhaps, but will likely > be less fun to drive than their predecessors. > > Those of us who are old enough to remember those old enormous heavy torquey > Detroit V-8s know that they were not just transportation, but rather they > were rolling toys. ?They had a lot of shiny unnecessary decorative metal > hanging on them. ?Those of us on the losing side of the sexual revolution > used to have geek orgies in those cars, by stuffing a dozen kids in there > and groping each other, hoping that one got a handful of the correct gender. > This was how we nerds entertained ourselves in those uncomfortable years > after herpes and before computers. > > spike > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Oct 24 22:21:36 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:21:36 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bug in outloading notion In-Reply-To: <830AE31F55F44463923B8184218CF52F@spike> References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> <8BBDE095723C4246BFD1204DA5405F10@spike> <21BAD0E7ACB6433B86E9A72B64717388@spike> <830AE31F55F44463923B8184218CF52F@spike> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:05 PM, spike wrote: > > My reasoning goes thus: if DNA folds predictably, then it should be > controllable by some means, as demonstrated by every earthly life form. ?If > the carbon double helix can both carry information and create structures, as > demonstrated by your DNA origami site, then in principle DNA can be the raw > materials from which to build a nanoreplicator. ?Or if you want to think of > it this way, nature already uses DNA to both carry information and to build > beasts. ?If an emergent AI reads all our online text, then makes some > mind-boggling extrapolation (boggles our minds, not theirs), they or it may > discover how to use the bacteria stowing away aboard every satellite to make > nanoreplicators. ?If so, these nanoreplicators would chew off and convert > unneeded structure on the satellite to make computronium, thin enough to act > as light sails, and outload from there. > I expect that parallel development of DNA-based building blocks as well as biological computing substrates (rat-brains repurposed as robot control wetware, for example) will provide all the tools in a neat little DIY toolbox - your stealth AI need only use existing tools in a novel way to escape humanity's notice. From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 22:28:33 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 00:28:33 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Precog PCs In-Reply-To: <4CC490F4.1090405@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC46E96.6050305@lightlink.com> <4CC490F4.1090405@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 24 October 2010 22:03, Damien Broderick wrote: > The implication is that any psi experiment is always subject jointly to at > least the influence of the agent or subject (who should be double blind) and > the experimenter (who should be blind to the target). > > With a program devised to "guess" (whatever that means for an algorithm--do > you throw in some sampling of quantum noise?), any significant effect could > always be attributed to the desires of the experimenter. You mean that the experimenter would influence psychokinetically the random generation of the "guesses"?! What if the program is diffused, installed and run randomly and unpredictably, e.g., in a virus-like fashion? -- Stefano Vaj From msd001 at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 22:29:20 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:29:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > The theory says that everything of this sort must have either been > selected or be a side effect of something that was under selection. > It is, for example, hard to make a case for the ability to be addicted > to drugs to have been selected. ?But it's easy to understand drug > addiction as a side effect of critical motivational reward mechanisms. To make that case I'd want to invoke some kind of alien programming, much like the TV show Stargate SG1's Goa'uld. But that's just fantasy.. :) > But take hypnosis. ?I can't make a case for that either being selected > *or* being a side effect of something that was selected. > > There is always the case that some feature could be the result of > random drift but it's not all that likely. I'd say it's just lucky [sic] that we happened to discover a particular exploit of human awareness and learning that hypnosis is possible under certain conditions (set/setting, prior experience, willingness, etc.) From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 22:33:00 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 15:33:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Retired military officers come forward about UFO visitations In-Reply-To: <40AE108C-2A6F-4666-B2FA-30259F201D3A@bellsouth.net> References: <40AE108C-2A6F-4666-B2FA-30259F201D3A@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: John, I suppose when the aliens land their ships at the Seti headquarters and pose for photographs with the scientists there, you will finally be happy. Yes, I admit that despite all this first class testimony, I wish there was rock solid physical evidence. I can imagine you in the role of an Air Force officer who sees one of this vessels hovering over the base gate, and you would get out of your car and defiantly shout at them that if they wanted you to believe they were really extraterrestrials, they better land and subject themselves to an examination. And so they would land for a short time (just for you...), and you would ask them many difficult questions about science that they would do their best to answer in a way you could understand. You would touch and poke them to see if they were wearing costumes, you would take a blood and tissue sample, you would takes lots of pictures with your camera, and even record your brief interview with a tape recorder. Oh, yes! You came prepared... The aliens take you aboard their ship but have to restrain you, when you try to dismantle their engines to see for yourself how they work... ; ) The aliens are not there long and they soon take off, but you are now convinced due to the evidence you gathered. You are immediately hustled off my security police to a general and some colonals who confiscate all of your evidence and tell you to never talk about things again, if you value your career and your life... Oh, but that would never happen! lol And so decades later, when retired Air Force Colonal John K Clark talks about his experience (encountering an "IFO" of alien origins) at the National Press Club, many people roll their eyes and mock him, because he has no physical evidence... John : ) On 10/24/10, John Clark wrote: > On Oct 23, 2010, at 4:43 PM, John Grigg wrote: > >> You make the comment that they have "nothing to show," but how would >> they? These men worked in very high security areas where trying to >> photograph such objects, and smuggle out the film would be extremely >> hard. And the visitors to their military bases were not in the habit >> of leaving souvenirs behind for them to take home... lol > > There is a quotation by Christopher Hitchens that I quite like: > > "What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without > evidence." > > By the way I have nothing against UFO's, the problem I have with flying > saucer enthusiasts is that they keep forgetting what the "U" in "UFO" stands > for and identify the damn things. > > John K Clark > > From agrimes at speakeasy.net Sun Oct 24 22:11:23 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:11:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Precog PCs In-Reply-To: <4CC490F4.1090405@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC46E96.6050305@lightlink.com> <4CC490F4.1090405@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CC4AF0B.6000103@speakeasy.net> This is a weird thread. If I really wanted to try to develop a precog PC, the best approach at this juncture would be genetic algorithms. First you would start with a FPGA setup such as those that have already been employed in genetic algorithm research. Then you would get yourself a bunch of random sensors, -- anything you could think of... Since we don't know what we're looking for, use high-speed, high-resolution DACs for all sensors. Your fitness function would be something like "how well can the code predict a binary string produced by an extremely good entropy source. The binary file should be about a kb in length. (equivalent to that many coin flips). The device should be allowed 10 seconds to come up with a guess and should be allowed to reverse-transmit the file for another ten seconds after it's done before being reprogrammed to run the next code in the population. I think the rule in science is that the probability of the outcome must be more than 25% out of the range of what would be expected given nothing. I'd have to sit and analyze this situation. The expected value is 50%, so if it is better than 65% or so on repeated tests (never dropping below 50%) then we might have a signal... Due to the time required to run the fitness function, and the sensitivity of the system to the exact experimental apparatus it is running on, the experiment would require years to run. However if it shows no improvement after a year or two then it should be possible to rule out any pre-cognitive effects on the hardware provided. It should be noted that "retro causal" signaling HAS BEEN OBSERVED in nuclear magnetic resonance imaging studies. During my brief stint at the Carnegie Institute of Washington one of the researchers there showed me a printout showing a signal about 1/4th as strong as the main signal *propagating backwards through time*. So yes, there is definitely an excellent reason to fund this experiment! -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 24 22:42:40 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:42:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Precog PCs In-Reply-To: References: <4CC46E96.6050305@lightlink.com> <4CC490F4.1090405@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CC4B660.1040809@satx.rr.com> On 10/24/2010 5:28 PM, Stefano Vaj wrote: > You mean that the experimenter would influence psychokinetically the > random generation of the "guesses"?! It's a possibility that has to be taken into account. (It also has to be taken into account when assessing the outcome of supposedly blinded placebo trials, which opens a large nasty nest of worms. Luckily, the psi effect size is usually small.) > What if the program is diffused, installed and run randomly and > unpredictably, e.g., in a virus-like fashion? I don't know enough about stochastic programs (well, anything about them, really) to say, except that the source of the machine's output has to be somehow open to modification. You can't stare at a book and change the third word on the fifth line of page 67, because it already exists. But experiments have shown that it is possible to influence a random machine *running in the past* such that its unobserved output is found to be significantly different from chance expectation *when the output is subsequently observed.* To work, this sort of experiment has to be done with a true random source for the data sequence. Don't blame me, I just work here. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 24 22:54:42 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:54:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Precog PCs In-Reply-To: <4CC4AF0B.6000103@speakeasy.net> References: <4CC46E96.6050305@lightlink.com> <4CC490F4.1090405@satx.rr.com> <4CC4AF0B.6000103@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4CC4B932.8050506@satx.rr.com> On 10/24/2010 5:11 PM, Alan Grimes wrote: > It should be noted that "retro causal" signaling HAS BEEN OBSERVED in > nuclear magnetic resonance imaging studies. During my brief stint at the > Carnegie Institute of Washington one of the researchers there showed me > a printout showing a signal about 1/4th as strong as the main signal > *propagating backwards through time*. Yes. This has been dubbed "presentiment" and has been found in quite a few studies where autonomic responses are recorded (including a few databases compiled independently for different purposes, and reexamined in light of this effect). The advance responses tend to be associated with strong emotionally charged events (feelthy pictures, blasts of noise, pix of shocking wounds or accidents) but not with bland neutral stimuli. This is consistent with an affordance selected by evolution. It doesn't happen every time, and the signal has to be factored out from the background noise and jitter. But it's repeatable, and has been repeated sufficiently often now in different labs to make it pretty clear that this is a real phenomenon. Damien Broderick From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Oct 24 23:02:00 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 16:02:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 1:24 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >> The theory says that everything of this sort must have either been >> selected or be a side effect of something that was under selection. >> It is, for example, hard to make a case for the ability to be addicted >> to drugs to have been selected. ?But it's easy to understand drug >> addiction as a side effect of critical motivational reward mechanisms. > > To make that case I'd want to invoke some kind of alien programming, > much like the TV show Stargate SG1's Goa'uld. ?But that's just > fantasy.. :) > >> But take hypnosis. ?I can't make a case for that either being selected >> *or* being a side effect of something that was selected. >> >> There is always the case that some feature could be the result of >> random drift but it's not all that likely. > > I'd say it's just lucky [sic] that we happened to discover a > particular exploit of human awareness and learning that hypnosis is > possible under certain conditions (set/setting, prior experience, > willingness, etc.) You are at the wrong level. Taken that hypnosis exists, then why do human have it at all? Why was it selected in the human past? I.e., how did it contribute to reproductive success? Or is it a side effect of some other trait that did contribute to reproductive success? I have what I think is a solid model for the reason humans have both religions and wars, under reasonable assumptions, wars in particular contribute strongly to genetic survival in some circumstances. With some knowledge of hunter gatherer cultures, capture-bonding is easy to understand But hypnosis has me baffled. I can't come up with a reason the psychological trait engaged in hypnosis has any survival or reproductive advantage at all. Keith From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 24 23:21:49 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 18:21:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CC4BF8D.9060608@satx.rr.com> On 10/24/2010 6:02 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > But hypnosis has me baffled. I can't come up with a reason the > psychological trait engaged in hypnosis has any survival or > reproductive advantage at all. It's a while since I look at the literature, but I gather that hypnosis is regarded as an instance of attention-capture; the "suggestible" who respond best probably exempflify strongly what happens to us all during collective episodes of focused attention on a leader or the mood of one's group. In a memetic animal like H. sapiens, I think the value of such a trait is pretty obvious. Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Mon Oct 25 00:14:00 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:14:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm><1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike><972149C3A4DF44529DE486DFD5F7958B@spike> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Keith Henson > ... > >> > >> ...What I was thinking was a very small turbine, 20kw (roughly 30 > horsepower... > > There is really no need for gears. The power takeoff turbine > can spin at whatever speed you want... Well OK Keith, I need to do some more work on this idea then. I just can't imagine a gas turbine spinning slowly enough to have any kind of generator hold together. In the mean time, here's a description of late night comedian Jay Leno's gas turbine motorcycle: http://wizbangpop.com/2009/07/16/jay-lenos-200mph-60000rpm-jet-turbine-motor cycle.php He did a comedy routine about riding this thing up around Mulholland, and some sap came up behind him when he was stopped. He looked in his mirror and saw the guy's bumber start to crinkle like a styrofoam cup in the campfire. {8^D > Conceptually, you could replace the engine in a Prius with a turbine... Jay also did a more serious interview regarding the bike. The 150k price tag wasn't the only thing stopping that bike, but rather that for all it's 300+ horsepower, it felt gutless, because it didn't accelerate all that hard. Reason: it takes a while to spool up the turbine to sixty thousand RPM. Imagine that. {8^D He also mentioned that it goes thru gasoline like Senator Kennedy guzzling whiskey (his words, not mine.) > > ...Big Detroit iron was just > plain fun in the days before electronic ignition. I fondly > remember my second car, a 57 Pontiac with 347 cubic inches of > engine, 10.5 to 1 compression ratio and a carburetor you > could drop a half dollar through and it wouldn't hit > anything... Ja I had a mid 60s vintage V8 in a pickup truck. You had to drop half dollar coins thru the carburetor on a regular basis, in the form of gasoline, lots of it. > It took 100 plus octane leaded gasoline would do > more than 120 mph, how much more I don't know... Good thing you didn't try it. The tires of those days were generally not up to the task. I had a second cousin who learned that the hard way (Gary Jones, perished violently in a 1962 Buick Wildcat, age 19 years.) > ...Now who among us would know how to set the ignition points dwell or > timing?... I still know how to do that. {8-] I had a '65 British bike with ignition points until four years ago and did all the maintenance on it myself. I still had a timing light until about 3 yrs ago. But new cars haven't had ignition points for thirty years now, and I don't even know when external timing belts went away. > As for new cars there is no hope of understanding > something with a million lines of code. Keith Ja. It left me behind about 25 years ago. Hell computers left me behind 10 years ago. Keith you and I are two lucky guys pal. We remember back to a time when life wasn't nearly as good as it is now. May we live until it is way better than it is now, or failing that, get frozen and uploaded when life is good. spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Oct 25 00:42:23 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 17:42:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: <4CC4BF8D.9060608@satx.rr.com> References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> <4CC4BF8D.9060608@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 4:21 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 10/24/2010 6:02 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >> >> But hypnosis has me baffled. ?I can't come up with a reason the >> psychological trait engaged in hypnosis has any survival or >> reproductive advantage at all. > > It's a while since I look at the literature, but I gather that hypnosis is > regarded as an instance of attention-capture; the "suggestible" who respond > best probably exempflify strongly what happens to us all during collective > episodes of focused attention on a leader or the mood of one's group. In a > memetic animal like H. sapiens, I think the value of such a trait is pretty > obvious. It's not obvious to me. One of the complaints about EP is that it uses stories, but stories are translated into mathematical models of gene selection and then can be tested. The war selection model depends on population expansion in good times and wars between groups when the alternative is starving. The capture bonding model depends on known rates of kidnapping in hunter gatherer groups. Another fact you need to figure into a model is that hypnosis, if it is under direct selection, results in a mixed population. Some people can be hypnotized easily and some are very hard to not at all. I.e., the value of the trait should depend on how widely it already exists in the population giving a mixed ESS like a number of the models discussed in The Selfish Gene. There are other human behavioral traits that thrive only at low levels of expression because they would not work if everyone was doing them. To fit an ESS model there must be advantages to *not* being susceptible as well as being susceptible and the relative advantage depend on the percentage of the population with the opposite trait. Other questions. Is hypnosis or something much like it seen in chimps and bonobos? Is susceptibility to hypnosis correlated to genes? Is it correlated to other personality traits? If you can put even the most tentative numbers on this problem it would help clarify the issues. Keith From agrimes at speakeasy.net Mon Oct 25 00:45:24 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:45:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Observation: In-Reply-To: <4CC4898D.3060801@canonizer.com> References: <4CC18FF5.1030809@speakeasy.net> <4CC4898D.3060801@canonizer.com> Message-ID: <4CC4D324.1040407@speakeasy.net> chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: Wonderful post, Chrome://messenger! =P > Alan, would you care to concisely describe there what you believe about > this issue, so we can find others that agree with you (and I?), and know > just how many of us there are? So we can all work together instead of > standing alone? There are dozens of different issues here. I'll list some of them and then do my best to respond to a few of them. * What are my exact beliefs regarding uploading? * What are my ideas about the best approach to expand the mind using technology? * What are my political views on uploading and other transhumanistic topics? * What do I believe are the common ground technologies for transhumanism? Regarding uploading, I am most used to explaining things in terms of flaws I perceive in other people's reasoning. One such flaw I saw recently was an argument based on theoretical computer science. The basic idea was: Same program; same state; equivalent processor --> Same result. I think much of theoretical computer science is flawed because it departs a million miles from an intuitive understanding of the art. It does this because it has evolved to serve one purpose: easy analysis using mathematical tools evolved in the 1800's. From a scientific standpoint, it is valid to say that if you successfully copied a "mem-self", (no mean feat that!), It would naturally re-create a psy-self all on it's own. Nobody can deny this. But on the other hand we are not talking about letters on a turing-tape. That which is being copied will experience a horrible, excruciating death (as all deaths are), while something completely different *and no better* will be created somewhere else. There are twenty different ways to interpret this. The computronium-lubbers mostly gravitate towards any point of view which argues in favor of you being the copy. The only point of view which means anything whatsoever to me is whether the I that am sitting here in this [cheap office depot] arm-chair will experience something good as a result of it. The answer is an unequivocal no, my brain will get to experience being discarded in a dumpster in a biohazard bag. What happens to the copy is entirely uninteresting. Even when I cover up that problem with a towel, I can't find *ANYTHING* about being an upload that I find appealing. Furthermore, I have no difficulty at all identifying technical problems and challenges that one would face as an upload that are typically dismissed as being irrelevant or flat out ignored. =\ So yeah, I don't think the uploaders have ANY idea what they're getting themselves in for. *** Politically, it goes against my philosophy to try to prohibit uploading of any kind. You will not find anyone to whom I've said "no, I will not allow you to upload". (You are welcome to try). On the other side of the fence, within the last week, on this very list, two different people have asserted that the inevitable evolutionary outcome is that the entire solar system, without exception, will be reduced to computronium. When called on this, they complained about my use of the word "reduced". If it needs to be said, if all the mater in the solar system were converted to computronium, I wouldn't have anything to build vacuum tubes with, and that would suck. *** Now what I want to try to do in the mental department is to develop a fairly optimal AI substrate, then mind-meld with it using a neural interface. Because AI is not constrained, in any way, to the original neural template, it should be able to achieve orders of magnitude better performance, on EVERY metric to *ANY* possible upload. Thanks to the folks at Cray Research, you can mail order a million-core machine. (and then power it with something like 50kw/chassis)... (folks without a 480volt 3-phase service need not apply! ;) Each chassis literally weighs a ton too! =P If you get one of those beasties on an OC256 (13.2gigs/second internet, baby!), you could rule the world! =P -- not that I have any desire to rule the pathetic stinking humans but hey... I would use it for R&D, basic singularity stuff, etc... One of the nagging worries I keep in the back of my mind is that if I augment myself enough to be able to design my next body, I will have evolved past actually wanting it at that point... =\ With sufficient funding, I could have that off the ground in as few as 5 years... (Maybe I'm just experiencing a delusional week? =\ ) *** The common ground in transuhumanism seems to be AGI. With AGI there is the very real possibility of everyone being granted his own genie machine (for better or worse). Also, the above vision calls for a "general neural interface" which is to AGI, as conventional neural interfaces are to today's AI. That might not be everyone's cup of tea but it would go a long way to keeping your genie's intentions close to your actual intentions. General purpose nanotech falls into the same category. -- Everyone benefits! Also there are some emerging technologies in the quantum realm/nuclear scale that would seem to be of common benefit to all transhumanists. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Oct 25 02:13:56 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 19:13:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> <1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike> <972149C3A4DF44529DE486DFD5F7958B@spike> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 5:14 PM, spike wrote: > >> ...On Behalf Of Keith Henson >> ... >> >> >> >> ...What I was thinking was a very small turbine, 20kw (roughly 30 >> horsepower... >> >> There is really no need for gears. ?The power takeoff turbine >> can spin at whatever speed you want... > > Well OK Keith, I need to do some more work on this idea then. ?I just can't > imagine a gas turbine spinning slowly enough to have any kind of generator > hold together. Steam is a gas, virtually all of the large steam and gas turbines turn at 3600 RPM. Next time you have the hood on a vehicle up, take a look at the diameter of the alternator and the driving pulley on the engine. Typically the ratio is from 4 to about 7. So if the engine red lines at 4500 RPM, the alternator speed would be 18,000 to 31,500 RPM. > In the mean time, here's a description of late night comedian Jay Leno's gas > turbine motorcycle: > > http://wizbangpop.com/2009/07/16/jay-lenos-200mph-60000rpm-jet-turbine-motor > cycle.php > > He did a comedy routine about riding this thing up around Mulholland, and > some sap came up behind him when he was stopped. ?He looked in his mirror > and saw the guy's bumber start to crinkle like a styrofoam cup in the > campfire. ?{8^D > >> Conceptually, you could replace the engine in a Prius with a turbine... > > Jay also did a more serious interview regarding the bike. ?The 150k price > tag wasn't the only thing stopping that bike, but rather that for all it's > 300+ horsepower, it felt gutless, because it didn't accelerate all that > hard. ?Reason: it takes a while to spool up the turbine to sixty thousand > RPM. ?Imagine that. ?{8^D ?He also mentioned that it goes thru gasoline like > Senator Kennedy guzzling whiskey (his words, not mine.) > >> >> ...Big Detroit iron was just >> plain fun in the days before electronic ignition. ?I fondly >> remember my second car, a 57 Pontiac with 347 cubic inches of >> engine, 10.5 to 1 compression ratio and a carburetor you >> could drop a half dollar through and it wouldn't hit >> anything... > > Ja I had a mid 60s vintage V8 in a pickup truck. ?You had to drop half > dollar coins thru the carburetor on a regular basis, in the form of > gasoline, lots of it. > >> It took 100 plus octane leaded gasoline would do >> more than 120 mph, how much more I don't know... > > Good thing you didn't try it. ?The tires of those days were generally not up > to the task. ?I had a second cousin who learned that the hard way (Gary > Jones, perished violently in a 1962 Buick Wildcat, age 19 years.) > >> ...Now who among us would know how to set the ignition points dwell or >> timing?... > > I still know how to do that. ?{8-] ?I had a '65 British bike with ignition > points until four years ago and did all the maintenance on it myself. ?I > still had a timing light until about 3 yrs ago. ?But new cars haven't had > ignition points for thirty years now, and I don't even know when external > timing belts went away. Big iron used internal steel ink belts running on fiber gears to half the speed for the cam shaft. The distributor sat on a 90 degree distributor shaft that was geared to the cam shaft. When they went to overhead cams they switched to long internal belts. I can't think of an engine that had the timing belt exposed. Setting the timing on those things involved loosening the distributor and twisting it to get the light flash from the spark off the number one cylinder to line up the crank case pulley with a pointer attached to the block. If it was a big engine and the distributor was located toward the back of the engine, two people were needed. snip Keith From spike66 at att.net Mon Oct 25 03:16:09 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:16:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm><1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike><972149C3A4DF44529DE486DFD5F7958B@spike> Message-ID: > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of > Keith Henson > Sent: Sunday, October 24, 2010 7:14 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries > > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 5:14 PM, spike wrote: > > > >> ...On Behalf Of Keith Henson > > > > Well OK Keith, I need to do some more work on this idea > then. ?I just > > can't imagine a gas turbine spinning slowly enough to have > any kind of > > generator hold together. > > Steam is a gas, virtually all of the large steam and gas > turbines turn at 3600 RPM... Oooookaaaaaayyyy, now I know why we were talking past each other. Ja, steam turbines can be made to turn slowly, but we are talking about two completely different things. Steam is cold. Even superheated steam is cold. Products of hydrocarbon combustion are hot. A steam turbine is a big thing, good for power generation, not good for carrying around to generate power in a Detroit. OK no problem, proposal: let's see if there are any steam turbines of 20-ish kw, I will estimate the boiler needed to make the steam and the condenser requirements (because that will be possibly as big and heavy as the rotor if not moreso) and I think we will both see why this notion has never been used as far as I know for automotive use. If instead of a condenser, we throw the low pressure steam overboard after it passes the turbine, the idea would require too much water mass for a typical trip. > Next time you have the hood on a vehicle up, take a look at > the diameter of the alternator and the driving pulley on the engine. > Typically the ratio is from 4 to about 7. So if the engine > red lines at 4500 RPM, the alternator speed would be 18,000 > to 31,500 RPM. ... > Keith Hmmm, well OK, with those numbers we should be able to get these two to meet somewhere in the middle. With that in mind, we might be able to get a hot gas turbine to run efficiently down at 30kRPM and a generator that can sustain those speeds without overheating. spike From pharos at gmail.com Mon Oct 25 07:29:00 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:29:00 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> <1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike> <972149C3A4DF44529DE486DFD5F7958B@spike> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 4:16 AM, spike wrote: > OK no problem, proposal: let's see if there are any steam turbines of 20-ish > kw, I will estimate the boiler needed to make the steam and the condenser > requirements (because that will be possibly as big and heavy as the rotor if > not moreso) and I think we will both see why this notion has never been used > as far as I know for automotive use. ?If instead of a condenser, we throw > the low pressure steam overboard after it passes the turbine, the idea would > require too much water mass for a typical trip. > > Hmmm, well OK, with those numbers we should be able to get these two to meet > somewhere in the middle. ?With that in mind, we might be able to get a hot > gas turbine to run efficiently down at 30kRPM and a generator that can > sustain those speeds without overheating. > > Length 7.663 m Width 1.700 m Tall 1.700 m Weight 3 tonnes Engine Two stage turbine 13,000rpm max turbine revs Transmission Rear wheel drive Power 268 kw 360 hp Top speed 274 kph 170 mph New world record! BillK From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 13:47:30 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 06:47:30 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <71854.10336.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> I think more of the problem relates back to what someone mentioned earlier: there seems to be no key figure in the history of psychology -- no Newton or Darwin. I actually think it's not so much this as no broadly agreed upon theory of psychology akin to classical mechanics in biology or the plate tectonics. Instead, even with progress over specific problems, there's no general theory -- or no general theory widely agreed upon. Of course, I'm merely echoing others on this and my knowledge of the current state of the field is probably of no account. Regards, Dan From: Keith Henson To: ExI chat list Sent: Sat, October 23, 2010 2:51:58 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Physics versus psychology 2010/10/23 John Clark : snip > Doing really great work in > psychology, work that ranks up there with Newton or Darwin or Einstein, is > so incredibly difficult that nobody has managed to do any yet. I disagree on it being difficult, having done substantial work in this area on the common origin of capture-bonding (Stockholm syndrome), battered wife syndrome, military basic training and hazing.? Also on the common origin of drug addiction and cult addiction.? On this very mailing list I analyzed the genetic basis of a model for the origins of both religions and wars as well as a previous journal article on the subject. I would venture to guess that fewer than one in ten of the list readers have even read the journal articles. Of course, such work is throughly politically incorrect and thus not widely accepted, not even here. Keith _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From jonkc at bellsouth.net Mon Oct 25 14:13:03 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:13:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Retired military officers come forward about UFO visitations In-Reply-To: References: <40AE108C-2A6F-4666-B2FA-30259F201D3A@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <932A105A-D2C3-4302-B372-3A7C06E17776@bellsouth.net> On Oct 24, 2010, at 6:33 PM, John Grigg wrote: > John, I suppose when the aliens land their ships at the Seti headquarters > and pose for photographs with the scientists there, you will finally be happy. Yes that would make me happy, and I in no way think that the above is an unreasonable requirement for taking such a story seriously. In fact, if ET exists I'll be damned if I understand why his existence isn't far far far more obvious than that! > Yes, I admit that despite all this first class testimony, In general there is no evidence in all the world more unreliable than eyewitness testimony. If I meet a ET the first question I'd ask him is why the hell you didn't engineer the universe; if those eyewitness can tell me what ET's answer was and the explanation actually made sense then my skepticism would be reduced. > I wish there was rock solid physical evidence. Rock Solid? You don't even have wet cardboard box solid physical evidence. > [after a 1950's B movie scenario] so decades later, when retired Air Force Colonal John K Clark > talks about his experience (encountering an "IFO" of alien origins) at the National Press Club, many people roll their eyes and mock him, because he has no physical evidence... I've never had a mystical experience, but if I did I'd have the courtesy to keep my mouth shut about it if the evidence for its validity was available only to myself. Even if I had discovered a new fact about the nature of reality there would be no way to communicate the news to others. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Oct 25 15:49:22 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 08:49:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm><1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike><972149C3A4DF44529DE486DFD5F7958B@spike> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of BillK > Subject: Re: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 4:16 AM, spike wrote: > > ...If instead of a condenser, we throw the low pressure steam overboard > > after it passes the turbine, the idea would require too > much water mass for a typical trip. > > > > > Length 7.663 m > Width 1.700 m > Tall 1.700 m > Weight 3 tonnes > Engine Two stage turbine 13,000rpm max turbine revs > Transmission Rear wheel drive > Power 268 kw 360 hp > Top speed 274 kph 170 mph > > New world record! > > BillK Thanks BillK, this confirms what I suspected. These kinds of experiments are used for land speed records. I noticed this design has no condenser, so it uses: ...Water capacity 140 litres deminerialised water ...1,000 litres (1tonne) of water used every 25 minutes 40 liters of water per minute, or a litre every 1.3 seconds, (a gallon every five seconds for Americans) and would have water capacity for a 3.5 minute run, but at these speeds this car would cover nearly 10 miles, devouring 60 litres of fuel in that time. I also noticed that this power plant produces right about the same amount of peak power as the Detroit V8 in my truck, and has a similar weight. spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Oct 25 16:54:22 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:54:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: <71854.10336.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> <71854.10336.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Dan wrote: > I think more of the problem relates back to what someone mentioned earlier: > there seems to be no key figure in the history of psychology -- no Newton or > Darwin. I actually think it's not so much this as no broadly agreed upon theory > of psychology akin to classical mechanics in biology or the plate tectonics. > Instead, even with progress over specific problems, there's no general theory -- > or no general theory widely agreed upon. Having watched the field for almost 15 years now, I think the evolutionary psychology will become the underpinning for psychology. The lack of a major figure isn't fatal. Plate tectonic doesn't have a Newton or Darwin figure associated with it. There is quite a list of major figures in the field. Keith > Of course, I'm merely echoing others on this and my knowledge of the current > state of the field is probably of no account. > > Regards, > > Dan > > > From: Keith Henson > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Sat, October 23, 2010 2:51:58 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Physics versus psychology > > 2010/10/23 John Clark : > > snip > >> Doing really great work in >> psychology, work that ranks up there with Newton or Darwin or Einstein, is >> so incredibly difficult that nobody has managed to do any yet. > > I disagree on it being difficult, having done substantial work in this > area on the common origin of capture-bonding (Stockholm syndrome), > battered wife syndrome, military basic training and hazing.? Also on > the common origin of drug addiction and cult addiction.? On this very > mailing list I analyzed the genetic basis of a model for the origins > of both religions and wars as well as a previous journal article on > the subject. > > I would venture to guess that fewer than one in ten of the list > readers have even read the journal articles. > > Of course, such work is throughly politically incorrect and thus not > widely accepted, not even here. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From rpwl at lightlink.com Mon Oct 25 17:29:19 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:29:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> <71854.10336.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CC5BE6F.70905@lightlink.com> Keith Henson wrote: > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Dan wrote: >> I think more of the problem relates back to what someone mentioned earlier: >> there seems to be no key figure in the history of psychology -- no Newton or >> Darwin. I actually think it's not so much this as no broadly agreed upon theory >> of psychology akin to classical mechanics in biology or the plate tectonics. >> Instead, even with progress over specific problems, there's no general theory -- >> or no general theory widely agreed upon. > > Having watched the field for almost 15 years now, I think the > evolutionary psychology will become the underpinning for psychology. > The lack of a major figure isn't fatal. Plate tectonic doesn't have a > Newton or Darwin figure associated with it. > > There is quite a list of major figures in the field. I can't let this pass. Sorry, but evolutionary psychology is barely even a *science*, let alone the underpinning for psychology. EP contains a vast amount of post-hoc, untestable speculation about how the psychological mechanisms might have been pushed around by evolutionary pressures. Analogy: suppose someone said that the real underpinnings for the theory of rivers was a "science" that purported to explain where the SHAPE of every river came from, in terms of the push and pull of various landscape upheavals like volcanoes, plate tectonics and so on. For any *given* river you could make up a story about how it got its particular shape, but in many cases you might simply have to guess the forces that shaped it because you simply do not have enough information. But this would barely be a "science" at all, let alone a science of rivers. Does it explain the actual ecology of rivers? Their day-to-day dynamics? Month-to-month dynamics? Year-to-year dynamics? Their ability to absorb toxic hazards? And the idea of calling that shape-describing "science" the "underpinning" for a future, better science of rivers would be laughable. There, I stuck my neck out. Richard Loosemore From dan_ust at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 17:51:52 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 10:51:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> <71854.10336.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <314047.61271.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> The lack of a major figure, to me too, doesn't matter. The lack of a major, binding theory, though, seems to halt progress somewhat. (Then again, maybe chaos is a good thing here. I don't know. Have to wait to see what happens.) Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ---- From: Keith Henson To: ExI chat list Sent: Mon, October 25, 2010 12:54:22 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Physics versus psychology On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Dan wrote: > I think more of the problem relates back to what someone mentioned earlier: > there seems to be no key figure in the history of psychology -- no Newton or > Darwin. I actually think it's not so much this as no broadly agreed upon theory > of psychology akin to classical mechanics in biology or the plate tectonics. > Instead, even with progress over specific problems, there's no general theory >-- > or no general theory widely agreed upon. Having watched the field for almost 15 years now, I think the evolutionary psychology will become the underpinning for psychology. The lack of a major figure isn't fatal.? Plate tectonic doesn't have a Newton or Darwin figure associated with it. There is quite a list of major figures in the field. Keith > Of course, I'm merely echoing others on this and my knowledge of the current > state of the field is probably of no account. > > Regards, > > Dan > > > From: Keith Henson > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Sat, October 23, 2010 2:51:58 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Physics versus psychology > > 2010/10/23 John Clark : > > snip > >> Doing really great work in >> psychology, work that ranks up there with Newton or Darwin or Einstein, is >> so incredibly difficult that nobody has managed to do any yet. > > I disagree on it being difficult, having done substantial work in this > area on the common origin of capture-bonding (Stockholm syndrome), > battered wife syndrome, military basic training and hazing.? Also on > the common origin of drug addiction and cult addiction.? On this very > mailing list I analyzed the genetic basis of a model for the origins > of both religions and wars as well as a previous journal article on > the subject. > > I would venture to guess that fewer than one in ten of the list > readers have even read the journal articles. > > Of course, such work is throughly politically incorrect and thus not > widely accepted, not even here. > > Keith From spike66 at att.net Mon Oct 25 18:47:55 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 11:47:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm><1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike><972149C3A4DF44529DE486DFD5F7958B@spike> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of BillK > Subject: Re: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 4:16 AM, spike wrote: > > > ...If > > instead of a condenser, we throw the low pressure steam overboard > > after it passes the turbine, the idea would require too > much water mass for a typical trip. > > > > ... > > > Length 7.663 m > Width 1.700 m > Tall 1.700 m > Weight 3 tonnes > Engine Two stage turbine 13,000rpm max turbine revs > Transmission Rear wheel drive > Power 268 kw 360 hp > Top speed 274 kph 170 mph > > New world record! > > BillK Hey BillK, I did some fooling around with BOTECs using the numbers they give on your steamy racecar site. Here's something I found amusing. Assume the steam exhaust pipe is horizontal and pointing aft (logical assumptions.) What is the diameter of the pipe required such that the velocity of the exhaust equals the top speed of the car, so that the exhaust is stationary with respect to the ground upon exit? My BOTECs: top speed 274 kph, that's about 76 m/sec, 1000 litres of water in 25 minutes is about 670 g/sec and a mole of steam at 100 C exhaust temperature (can't be cooler than 100 C, otherwise it wrecks the turbine quickly) is about .6 g/liter, so for the exhaust velocity to be 76 m/sec the exhaust area is about 150 cm^2, or diameter about 13 cm. Interesting result, because that is a size easily visualized: typically drainage pipe is almost that diameter, and 5.5 inches is the average length of man's best friend. That would be one impressive plume of sparkly white steam billowing out the back, ja? I wonder if there is a YouTube somewhere? {8-] spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 20:27:08 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 13:27:08 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <433427.87778.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> ----- Original Message ---- > From: Keith Henson > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Sun, October 24, 2010 4:02:00 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Physics versus psychology > > But hypnosis has me baffled.? I can't come up with a reason the > psychological trait engaged in hypnosis has any survival or > reproductive advantage at all. I imagine that hypnosis is a somewhat primitive brain function evolved early on. My reasoning for this? Animals can enter trance-like states resembling hypnosis like when a deer is mesmerized by headlights or a chicken?is hypnotized. It may be some kind of defense mechanism to keep from attracting the attention of large predators or something by remaining motionless. I dont know. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMZDieZoing&feature=fvw Stuart LaForge ?To be normal is the ideal aim of the unsuccessful.? -Carl Jung From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Oct 25 19:54:22 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:54:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: <314047.61271.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> <71854.10336.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <314047.61271.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: The binding theory is that physiological traits and behaviors (human and animal) are subject to evolutionary selection. People don't leap off cliffs and tend to be very careful close to places where a fall could hurt them. You can predict this simply from the fact that people who do leap off cliffs and are not careful in places where a fall could hurt or kill them don't have as many descendants as prudent humans. Like much of EP, this is so obvious it doesn't seem to need an evolutionary explanation. But the same method can be applied to much more complicated traits, such as seeking status. There are good reasons to think social life in the hunter gatherer era was much like the present or historical traditional low tech peoples who have been studied. One of the features of those groups is that stealing women from one group to another was relatively common, typically around 10%. So in the past some fraction on the order of 1 in 10 of our female ancestors were captured into a new tribe. When this happened, the woman could adapt to the new situation and have children with her captors or if she didn't adapt, most likely die. Guess which ones we are descended from. Over thousands of generations, that's a hell of a selection pressure, enough it seems to have selected for mental mechanisms that show up today as Stockholm syndrome or, more descriptively, capture-bonding. John Tooby figured this out around 1980, but didn't publish. It dawned on me 15 or 16 years later. EP will be rejected if no connections are found between genes and behavior. How likely do you think *that* is? Keith On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:51 AM, Dan wrote: > The lack of a major figure, to me too, doesn't matter. The lack of a major, > binding theory, though, seems to halt progress somewhat. (Then again, maybe > chaos is a good thing here. I don't know. Have to wait to see what happens.) > > Regards, > > Dan > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Keith Henson > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Mon, October 25, 2010 12:54:22 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Physics versus psychology > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 6:47 AM, Dan wrote: >> I think more of the problem relates back to what someone mentioned earlier: >> there seems to be no key figure in the history of psychology -- no Newton or >> Darwin. I actually think it's not so much this as no broadly agreed upon > theory >> of psychology akin to classical mechanics in biology or the plate tectonics. >> Instead, even with progress over specific problems, there's no general theory >>-- >> or no general theory widely agreed upon. > > Having watched the field for almost 15 years now, I think the > evolutionary psychology will become the underpinning for psychology. > The lack of a major figure isn't fatal.? Plate tectonic doesn't have a > Newton or Darwin figure associated with it. > > There is quite a list of major figures in the field. > > Keith > >> Of course, I'm merely echoing others on this and my knowledge of the current >> state of the field is probably of no account. >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan >> >> >> From: Keith Henson >> To: ExI chat list >> Sent: Sat, October 23, 2010 2:51:58 PM >> Subject: Re: [ExI] Physics versus psychology >> >> 2010/10/23 John Clark : >> >> snip >> >>> Doing really great work in >>> psychology, work that ranks up there with Newton or Darwin or Einstein, is >>> so incredibly difficult that nobody has managed to do any yet. >> >> I disagree on it being difficult, having done substantial work in this >> area on the common origin of capture-bonding (Stockholm syndrome), >> battered wife syndrome, military basic training and hazing.? Also on >> the common origin of drug addiction and cult addiction.? On this very >> mailing list I analyzed the genetic basis of a model for the origins >> of both religions and wars as well as a previous journal article on >> the subject. >> >> I would venture to guess that fewer than one in ten of the list >> readers have even read the journal articles. >> >> Of course, such work is throughly politically incorrect and thus not >> widely accepted, not even here. >> >> Keith > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Oct 25 21:26:59 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:26:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: <433427.87778.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> <433427.87778.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: I suppose this is possible. But if so, it must not have had much affect on survival since people vary so much in their susceptibility to hypnosis. It just about has to depend on brain mechanisms that are built by genes. Depending on which genes you get various susceptibility. But if it has not made a difference in reproductive success since the age of the dinosaurs, then even if all mammals (or even all animals) started out with it, the genes for susceptibility would slowly drift out of the gene pool. The alternative model is that there is some advantage being susceptible if there is a certain fraction in the population who are not and the advantage goes down as the number who are susceptible goes up. Such ballanced polymorphisms are well known as ESS (evolutionarily stable stratagies. Your explanation may be the correct one. It sure seems like a complicated mechanism to be drifting but I am unable to with how susceptibility could relate to improving reproductive success. Keith On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 1:27 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > ----- Original Message ---- >> From: Keith Henson >> To: ExI chat list >> Sent: Sun, October 24, 2010 4:02:00 PM >> Subject: Re: [ExI] Physics versus psychology >> >> But hypnosis has me baffled.? I can't come up with a reason the >> psychological trait engaged in hypnosis has any survival or >> reproductive advantage at all. > > I imagine that hypnosis is a somewhat primitive brain function evolved early on. > My reasoning for this? Animals can enter trance-like states resembling hypnosis > like when a deer is mesmerized by headlights or a chicken?is hypnotized. It may > be some kind of defense mechanism to keep from attracting the attention of large > predators or something by remaining motionless. I dont know. > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SMZDieZoing&feature=fvw > > Stuart LaForge > > > ?To be normal is the ideal aim of the unsuccessful.? -Carl Jung > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From thespike at satx.rr.com Mon Oct 25 21:39:05 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:39:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> <433427.87778.qm@web65606.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CC5F8F9.8000207@satx.rr.com> On 10/25/2010 4:26 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > Your explanation may be the correct one. It sure seems like a > complicated mechanism to be drifting but I am unable to with how > susceptibility could relate to improving reproductive success. Not being eaten as a predator's dinner has been known to enhance reproductive success. Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Mon Oct 25 21:26:58 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 14:26:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com><4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com><938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net><71854.10336.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com><314047.61271.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <84F3EDCA182C4B9092FF40417076F2BF@spike> >...On Behalf Of Keith Henson ... > > EP will be rejected if no connections are found between genes > and behavior. How likely do you think *that* is?... Keith Extrememly un. It is sufficiently clear to me that there is a strong connection between genes and behavior, although the specific mechanism is not understood. Like a lot of things, there is more than one gene responsible. If we discover for instance that genes strongly influence one's political view (I think they do) then most political debate becomes largely pointless. I have looked at it from a slightly different direction: there seems to be a strong connection between genes and the likelihood certain memes will spread and prosper in a given population. The EP explanation for certain behavior is as good as anything I have seen, as well as the behavior of domestic dogs and cats. Those do not really need to be tamed, for they descended from ancestors that were tamed successfully and bred. Even third or fourth generation feral cats are more comfortable hanging around humans than their cousins the bobcat. I see plenty of predictive power in EP as Keith has described it. From pharos at gmail.com Mon Oct 25 21:53:04 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:53:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: <84F3EDCA182C4B9092FF40417076F2BF@spike> References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> <71854.10336.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <314047.61271.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <84F3EDCA182C4B9092FF40417076F2BF@spike> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:26 PM, spike wrote: > I have looked at it from a slightly different direction: there seems to be a > strong connection between genes and the likelihood certain memes will spread > and prosper in a given population. > > The EP explanation for certain behavior is as good as anything I have seen, > as well as the behavior of domestic dogs and cats. ?Those do not really need > to be tamed, for they descended from ancestors that were tamed successfully > and bred. ?Even third or fourth generation feral cats are more comfortable > hanging around humans than their cousins the bobcat. > > I see plenty of predictive power in EP as Keith has described it. > > But is it nature or nurture? Do you stay away from the lions because you have inherited genes from people who stayed away from lions? Or, Do you stay away from lions because your parents and other high status members of the tribe tell / order you to stay away from the lions? And those who ignore the orders don't reproduce, so your submissive personality does reproduce and produces more people who will follow orders. BillK BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Oct 25 22:17:40 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:17:40 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Precog PCs In-Reply-To: <4CC4AF0B.6000103@speakeasy.net> References: <4CC46E96.6050305@lightlink.com> <4CC490F4.1090405@satx.rr.com> <4CC4AF0B.6000103@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/25 Alan Grimes : > This is a weird thread. > > If I really wanted to try to develop a precog PC, the best approach at > this juncture would be genetic algorithms. Why should they work any better than any generator of random picks within a finite set of answers? We are discussing psi precog here, not the ability to calculate an outcome from any possible dataset, after all. -- Stefano Vaj From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Oct 25 22:19:39 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:19:39 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Precog PCs In-Reply-To: <4CC4B660.1040809@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC46E96.6050305@lightlink.com> <4CC490F4.1090405@satx.rr.com> <4CC4B660.1040809@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On 25 October 2010 00:42, Damien Broderick wrote: > Don't blame me, I just work here. Not at all, something which everybody should recognise is that you at least care to know the actual state-of-the-art... -- Stefano Vaj From pharos at gmail.com Mon Oct 25 19:19:17 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:19:17 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm> <1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike> <972149C3A4DF44529DE486DFD5F7958B@spike> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 7:47 PM, spike wrote: > Hey BillK, I did some fooling around with BOTECs using the numbers they give > on your steamy racecar site. ?Here's something I found amusing. > > Assume the steam exhaust pipe is horizontal and pointing aft (logical > assumptions.) ?What is the diameter of the pipe required such that the > velocity of the exhaust equals the top speed of the car, so that the exhaust > is stationary with respect to the ground upon exit? > > That would be one impressive plume of sparkly white steam billowing out the > back, ja? ?I wonder if there is a YouTube somewhere? > > If you really want to watch a steamy video...... it's here: (3.5minutes) BillK From spike66 at att.net Mon Oct 25 23:46:59 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:46:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries In-Reply-To: References: <4BAA53F750AE4EC28C8572A93D30A61F@cpdhemm><1CFB06B9B09D4E23BE6259E9152E9BE0@spike><972149C3A4DF44529DE486DFD5F7958B@spike> Message-ID: <5C62E792D55C4FBBB7CB84AA57B23066@spike> > ...On Behalf Of BillK > Subject: Re: [ExI] Electric cars without batteries > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 7:47 PM, spike wrote: > ... > > That would be one impressive plume of sparkly white steam billowing > > out the back, ja? ?I wonder if there is a YouTube somewhere? > > > If you really want to watch a steamy video...... it's here: > (3.5minutes) ... BillK I realized there was a flaw in my reasoning. I assumed a gas turbine needs to spin like hell to work right. But the examples I was thinking of were all coupled to a centrifugal compressor, which really does need to spin. So I contacted an old friend and former engineering school classmate to ask if there are gas turbines that can run down around 20kRMM and still be efficient. I should hear back soon. spike From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Mon Oct 25 23:50:10 2010 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 16:50:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Quantum Homeopathy? Message-ID: <680014.10751.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> The consensus?opinion of the dominant allopathic medical establishment is that homeopathy is bunk. But I am at a loss to explain the results?reported in?the following immunology?paper. http://www.springerlink.com/content/dmby16rmj02dhxat/fulltext.pdf The journal while not top tier is still respectable and the?experimental methods used were quite well designed to avoid accusations of bias?by using blinded methods, multiple labs, and automated measurement. In summary, what is shown is that *extremely* dilute solutions?of histamines were capable of?inhibiting the activation of?white blood cells known as basophiles.?To give you an idea of how dilute a 10^-30 molar solution is, it means that one liter of the solution is expected to contain on average less than a single molecule of histamine. The tiny amounts of the solution they used on each sample were on the order of 20 microliters. Thus it is statistically?highly unlikely?that?even a single molecule of histamine?was actually applied to the cells. Yet three independent laboratories measured statistically significant results. Could this be some sort of quantum phenomenon where the histamine molecules became entagled with the water molecules and?were?simultaneously present *and* not present in the solution? I am boggled by this result. Stuart LaForge ?To be normal is the ideal aim of the unsuccessful.? -Carl Jung From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Oct 26 00:57:05 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:57:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: >> I'd say it's just lucky [sic] that we happened to discover a >> particular exploit of human awareness and learning that hypnosis is >> possible under certain conditions (set/setting, prior experience, >> willingness, etc.) > > You are at the wrong level. > > Taken that hypnosis exists, then why do human have it at all? ?Why was > it selected in the human past? ?I.e., how did it contribute to > reproductive success? > > Or is it a side effect of some other trait that did contribute to > reproductive success? Please explain what you mean by hypnosis. I'm imagining the stage performance of making people thing they're a chicken or a clinical suggestion to quit smoking. Are you talking about how this would be useful for a population that it would be exploited or cultivated? If so, I think BillK's example is a decent explanation: those who ready accept dominion from a strong leader are rewarded with breeding opportunity while those who oppose the dominant leader are challenged - winning the challenge probably involves ostracism from the group (smugly satisfied, but lower breeding likelihood) while failing the challenge probably leads to reduced breeding chance too. The only time resistance to hypnosis is advantageous is in the presence of a codependent trait for leadership (such as physical size/brute strength) > > I have what I think is a solid model for the reason humans have both > religions and wars, under reasonable assumptions, wars in particular > contribute strongly to genetic survival in some circumstances. ?With > some knowledge of hunter gatherer cultures, capture-bonding is easy to > understand > > But hypnosis has me baffled. ?I can't come up with a reason the > psychological trait engaged in hypnosis has any survival or > reproductive advantage at all. > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From spike66 at att.net Tue Oct 26 03:15:27 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 20:15:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] singularity, voting machines again, was Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com><4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com><938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net><71854.10336.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com><314047.61271.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com><84F3EDCA182C4B9092FF40417076F2BF@spike> Message-ID: <6D0169B83405415CBB60753C91D2D3E9@spike> > ...On Behalf Of BillK > Subject: Re: [ExI] Physics versus psychology > > On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 10:26 PM, spike wrote: > > I have looked at it from a slightly different direction: > there seems to be a strong connection between genes and the likelihood certain > > memes will spread and prosper in a given population. > > ... > But is it nature or nurture? > > Do you stay away from the lions because you have inherited > genes from people who stayed away from lions? Or, > Do you stay away from lions because your parents and other > high status members of the tribe tell / order you to stay > away from the lions?... BillK BillK, it is wildly complicated, clearly involving both nature and nurture, with the ratio being dependent on many variables, changing with time and circumstances. If it were not wildly complicated, we would not still be debating the whole idea after all this time. Let me illustrate, in a way that really jumps to a new, very important and timely topic. Here in this forum we have a collection of individuals, many or perhaps most of which accept the notion of a singularity, that a computer can be host to an emergent sentience. If we accept the notion that a computer can somehow hack itself, how much easier would it be for existing sentience, a human actor, hacks a computer to do the will of the human. BillK, we in the states are approaching a week from tomorrow a national election for the house of representatives and about a third of the senate. Many of the districts have touch screen voting without paper trail, on machines which have been demonstrated to be hackable: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7998 OK now then please: answer only if you are one who believes it is theoretically possible for an emergent AI to hack into a computer in which it resides, and you also looked at the link above. If both, then do you see why the US election system is greatly at risk? If so, do you see why a US election system greatly at risk presents a grave danger in a heavily armed nation? Do you wish to argue that a singularity is theoretically possible, an emergent AI could somehow hack the computer network, but that a malicious human cannot do likewise? If so, do explain your reasoning carefully please, for I need to hear that to calm my nerves. Does anyone here wish to argue that although theoretically possible, this has never occurred and will never occur? Explain please. Is there anyone here who would argue to the contrary, we have seen indications that paperless voting has already been corrupted in at least one case? I want to see how these particular memes propagate in this particular clade. spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Oct 26 01:39:59 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 18:39:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 5:57 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 7:02 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >> On Sun, Oct 24, 2010 at 3:29 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: >>> I'd say it's just lucky [sic] that we happened to discover a >>> particular exploit of human awareness and learning that hypnosis is >>> possible under certain conditions (set/setting, prior experience, >>> willingness, etc.) >> >> You are at the wrong level. >> >> Taken that hypnosis exists, then why do human have it at all? ?Why was >> it selected in the human past? ?I.e., how did it contribute to >> reproductive success? >> >> Or is it a side effect of some other trait that did contribute to >> reproductive success? > > Please explain what you mean by hypnosis. It is discussed here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypnosis > I'm imagining the stage > performance of making people thing they're a chicken or a clinical > suggestion to quit smoking. ?Are you talking about how this would be > useful for a population that it would be exploited or cultivated? No. What I am asking is how this particular psychological trait became established. If indeed it did and is not dependent on some other psychological trait that does confer reproductive advantage. ". . . most subsequent scales measure the degree of observed or self-evaluated responsiveness to specific suggestion tests, such as direct suggestions of arm rigidity (catalepsy). The Stanford, Harvard, HIP, and most other susceptibility scales convert numbers into an assessment of a person's susceptibility as 'high', 'medium', or 'low'. Approximately 80% of the population are medium, 10% are high and 10% are low. There is some controversy as to whether this is distributed on a ?normal? bell-shaped curve or whether it is bi-modal with a small ?blip? of people at the high end.[19] Hypnotizability Scores are highly stable over a person?s lifetime. Research by Deirdre Barrett has found that there are two distinct types of highly susceptible subjects which she terms fantasizers and dissociaters. Fantasizers score high on absorption scales, find it easy to block out real-world stimuli without hypnosis, spend much time daydreaming, report imaginary companions as a child and grew up with parents who encouraged imaginary play. Dissociaters often have a history of childhood abuse or other trauma, learned to escape into numbness, and to forget unpleasant events. Their association to ?daydreaming? was often going blank rather than vividly recalled fantasies. Both score equally high on formal scales of hypnotic susceptibility." > If > so, I think BillK's example is a decent explanation: ?those who ready > accept dominion from a strong leader are rewarded with breeding > opportunity Is hypnosis of the kind above related to breeding opportunities? Can you cite research on this point? Far as my extensive reading into this area goes, most primitive strong leaders have lots of breeding opportunities without providing them to followers. > while those who oppose the dominant leader are challenged > - winning the challenge probably involves ostracism from the group Really? Any cites on this? Social groups do have turnover at the top, if for no other reason people get old, weak, demented and die. > (smugly satisfied, but lower breeding likelihood) while failing the > challenge probably leads to reduced breeding chance too. ?The only > time resistance to hypnosis is advantageous is in the presence of a > codependent trait for leadership (such as physical size/brute > strength) I think you are making a bunch of unjustified assumptions about how the ability to be hypnotized is connected to other traits. Is there research showing leaders to be on one end or the other of the above scale? Do leaders rank high, low or is there no correlation? Now, high status is known to be a large factor in reproductive success among primates. I have no idea of how or if there is any connection to hypnosis. It would be an interesting point to research though. Keith From brent.allsop at canonizer.com Tue Oct 26 04:06:49 2010 From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:06:49 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Observation: In-Reply-To: <4CC4D324.1040407@speakeasy.net> References: <4CC18FF5.1030809@speakeasy.net> <4CC4898D.3060801@canonizer.com> <4CC4D324.1040407@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4CC653D9.8070603@canonizer.com> On 10/24/2010 6:45 PM, Alan Grimes wrote: > Wonderful post, >> Alan, would you care to concisely describe there what you believe about >> this issue, so we can find others that agree with you (and I?), and know >> just how many of us there are? So we can all work together instead of >> standing alone? Thanks. For some reasons I fail to understand, many people don't seem to agree. I can't understand why people seem to have no interests in, or even have a loathing of the possibility of easily knowing, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone else thinks. They just seem to only care about what they, themselves, think is true and destroying or ignoring everything else. Either that or I'm the worlds worst salesman or something. I'd love to get these views you've expressed here 'canonized' so to speak. On the surface, it sounds like on the issue of uploading, you agree with at least most of this phenomenal uploading camp that already exists here: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/48/3 Is there anything in that statement you disagree with, or anything you'd like to add / improve, to concisely state what you believe? Brent Allsop From spike66 at att.net Tue Oct 26 04:34:29 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 21:34:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Observation: In-Reply-To: <4CC653D9.8070603@canonizer.com> References: <4CC18FF5.1030809@speakeasy.net> <4CC4898D.3060801@canonizer.com> <4CC4D324.1040407@speakeasy.net> <4CC653D9.8070603@canonizer.com> Message-ID: <64AEF02615454A98B685D726C990BD9D@spike> >...On Behalf Of Brent Allsop > ... > > I'd love to get these views you've expressed here 'canonized' > so to speak. On the surface, it sounds like on the issue of > uploading, you agree with at least most of this phenomenal > uploading camp that already exists here: > > http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/48/3 > > ... > Brent Allsop Brent! I am ashamed to admit that after all this time you have been talking about canonizer, tonight is the first time I have looked at it. This thing is GREAT! Good work bud. I look forward to working with it. spike From agrimes at speakeasy.net Tue Oct 26 06:22:06 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 02:22:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. Message-ID: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> While I'm waiting for my evening medication to kick in, lets see if I can finish a quick little vignette before I go to sleap. Lets say you went in for a non-destructive uploading. Lets say that, to your great surprise, you woke up in both situations simultaneously. While retaining your original consciousness, you also, at the same time, and in the same way, experienced everything your upload did (and vice versa). What say you to that? I would say that I would find that situation very interesting and I would work to improve the situation of both sides of my being without malice or prejudice. If the link between the two halves of my being were sufficiently robust, I would evolve the uploaded part so that it would be as effective as possible in its situation while providing my original self with the upgrades it wants and use both halves to work towards paradise. =) -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Oct 26 10:08:10 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:08:10 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Homeopathy? In-Reply-To: <680014.10751.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <680014.10751.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 10:50 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > The consensus?opinion of the dominant allopathic medical establishment is that > homeopathy is bunk. But I am at a loss to explain the results?reported in?the > following immunology?paper. > > http://www.springerlink.com/content/dmby16rmj02dhxat/fulltext.pdf > > The journal while not top tier is still respectable and the?experimental methods > used were quite well designed to avoid accusations of bias?by using blinded > methods, multiple labs, and automated measurement. > > In summary, what is shown is that *extremely* dilute solutions?of histamines > were capable of?inhibiting the activation of?white blood cells known as > basophiles.?To give you an idea of how dilute a 10^-30 molar solution is, it > means that one liter of the solution is expected to contain on average less than > a single molecule of histamine. The tiny amounts of the solution they used on > each sample were on the order of 20 microliters. > > Thus it is statistically?highly unlikely?that?even a single molecule of > histamine?was actually applied to the cells. Yet three independent laboratories > measured statistically significant results. Could this be some sort of quantum > phenomenon where the histamine molecules became entagled with the water > molecules and?were?simultaneously present *and* not present in the solution? I > am boggled by this result. > Stuart LaForge This seems to be a continuation of the Jacques Benveniste controversy, which started with a "Nature" paper in 1988: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Oct 26 12:49:38 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:49:38 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/26 Alan Grimes : > While I'm waiting for my evening medication to kick in, lets see if I > can finish a quick little vignette before I go to sleap. > > > Lets say you went in for a non-destructive uploading. Lets say that, to > your great surprise, you woke up in both situations simultaneously. > While retaining your original consciousness, you also, at the same time, > and in the same way, experienced everything your upload did (and vice > versa). > > What say you to that? > > I would say that I would find that situation very interesting and I > would work to improve the situation of both sides of my being without > malice or prejudice. If the link between the two halves of my being were > sufficiently robust, I would evolve the uploaded part so that it would > be as effective as possible in its situation while providing my original > self with the upgrades it wants and use both halves to work towards > paradise. =) If the copy and the original have a telepathic link that is an additional fact about the uploading situation which changes the whole thought experiment. Assuming just the copying happens and there is no other funny business going on, you would expect to end up as either the copy or the original with equal probability. Before the procedure if one of the copy or the original is to be tortured you will be anxious, because there is a 1/2 probability that you will be tortured. After the procedure if you find yourself observing a copy of you being tortured you are relieved (while feeling sorry for the copy) because you are not the one in pain. -- Stathis Papaioannou From scerir at alice.it Tue Oct 26 12:38:17 2010 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:38:17 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Homeopathy? In-Reply-To: References: <680014.10751.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6167A849E761437A92CEAF76DB380990@PCserafino> > This seems to be a continuation of the Jacques Benveniste controversy, > which started with a "Nature" paper in 1988: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Benveniste > Stathis Papaioannou there are several speculative papers about that. since these authors are not usual BS writers (i.e. Preparata was a top theorist at Cern) it is possible that it is not just BS. - E. Del Giudice, G. Preparata, ?Coherent Dynamics in water as a possible Explanation of Biological Physics", J. of Biol. Physics, B9,20, 105-115 (1994) - R. Arani, I. Bono, E. Del Giudice, G. Preparata, ?QED Coherence and the Thermodynamics of water?. International Journal of Modern Physics 139,1813,1841 (1995) - M.N. Zhadin, V.V. Novikov, F.S. Barnes, N.F. Pergola, ?Combined action of static and alternatine magnetic fields on ionic current in a queous glutamic, acid solution? Bioelectromagnetics 19, 41-45 (1998) - E. Del Giudice, G. Preparata, M. Fleischmann, ?Qed coherence and electrolyte solutions? Journal of Electroanalitical Chemistry 482, 110-116 (2000) - E. Del Giudice, M. Fleischmann, G. Preparata, G. Talpo, ?On the unreosonable effects of ELF magnetic fieds upon a system of ions?. Bioelectromagnetics 23, 522-530 (2002) From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Oct 26 13:04:08 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:04:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Oct 25, 2010 at 9:39 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > > I think you are making a bunch of unjustified assumptions about how > the ability to be hypnotized is connected to other traits. > You are correct. > Is there research showing leaders to be on one end or the other of the > above scale? ?Do leaders rank high, low or is there no correlation? No idea. Also not qualified (apparently) to speculate. :) > Now, high status is known to be a large factor in reproductive success > among primates. ?I have no idea of how or if there is any connection > to hypnosis. > > It would be an interesting point to research though. Thanks. From bbenzai at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 13:08:29 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:08:29 +0100 (BST) Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <471435.42384.qm@web114409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Alan Grimes wrote: > Lets say you went in for a non-destructive > uploading. Lets say that, to > your great surprise, you woke up in both situations > simultaneously. > While retaining your original consciousness, you > also, at the same time, > and in the same way, experienced everything your > upload did (and vice > versa). > > What say you to that? I'd say it's a very revealing question. It might be worth pondering what this "you" that you are referring to, actually is. The question implies that there is an immaterial being that is somehow connected to a brain, without there being any actual connection. This dualistic view makes no sense to me. In your scenario, it seems likely that two people, both you, would wake up in their respective situations and start to diverge. At no point would there be any more communication between them than there is between any other two people, and certainly no shared consciousness. The central point is this: There is no 'you', except for what your brain does. If you don't accept this, you are a dualist, and uploading is irrelevant to you. If you do accept it, it logically follows that if you reproduce what your brain does exactly, there will be another, separate and complete 'you'. I know that the concept of 'two separate people, both you' is difficult for many people to grasp (probably due to lingering tendencies to think dualistically), but until it is grasped, there's no real point in discussing uploading. All that will happen is you'll get into an argument that can't be resolved. I'm tempted to recommend that such people write out "I am what my brain does" 1000 times, in the hope that enlightenment will strike, but to be honest, I doubt it would work. Ben Zaiboc From agrimes at speakeasy.net Tue Oct 26 13:23:52 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:23:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4CC6D668.6090201@speakeasy.net> > If the copy and the original have a telepathic link that is an > additional fact about the uploading situation which changes the whole > thought experiment. ;) That's what inspired me to post. > Assuming just the copying happens and there is no > other funny business going on, you would expect to end up as either > the copy or the original with equal probability. False. You are the original with absolute certainty. =| -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From agrimes at speakeasy.net Tue Oct 26 14:07:48 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:07:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <471435.42384.qm@web114409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <471435.42384.qm@web114409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CC6E0B4.7080702@speakeasy.net> chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: >> Lets say you went in for a non-destructive >> uploading. Lets say that, to >> your great surprise, you woke up in both situations >> simultaneously. While retaining your original consciousness, you >> also, at the same time, >> and in the same way, experienced everything your >> upload did (and vice >> versa). >> What say you to that? > I'd say it's a very revealing question. It might be > worth pondering what this "you" that you are referring > to, actually is. The question implies that there is > an immaterial being that is somehow connected to a > brain, without there being any actual connection. False. It merely implies that brains are capable of experiencing things, something which cannot be denied. > This dualistic view makes no sense to me. I'm a militant monist! How dare you accuse me of dualistic thinking. I'm less of a dualist than you are. You believe in a new kind of dualism called pattern-brain duality. Part of this post was engineered (at 2 AM no less) as a heat-seaking, high velocity sniper round aimed precisely at the soft stinking core of mind uploading! > In your scenario, it seems likely that two people, both you, > would wake up in their respective situations and start > to diverge. At no point would there be any more > communication between them than there is between any > other two people, and certainly no shared consciousness. Oh, but there must be! Uploading would be entirely without utilitarian benefit without such a link! =P Either the link exists or uploading is useless. By arguing against the existence of the link, you are arguing against uploading itself! > The central point is this: > There is no 'you', except for what your brain does. Correct, my brain. > If you don't accept this, you are a dualist, and > uploading is irrelevant to you. Wrong! I am so monistic that I have extreme doubts that your/my mind can be separated from the brain no matter what you do because it's the self-same thing. I might be forced to carry my brain around in a pitri dish for the rest of eternity like Brain Guy on MST3k, but I'd be willing to do so if it should prove necessary. =\ > If you do accept it, it logically follows that if you > reproduce what your brain does exactly, there will be > another, separate and complete 'you'. Yes, separate. > I know that the concept of 'two separate people, both > you' is difficult for many people to grasp (probably > due to lingering tendencies to think dualistically), > but until it is grasped, there's no real point in > discussing uploading. All that will happen is you'll > get into an argument that can't be resolved. Demonstrably. =\ So lets argue about who's the stinking soft-headed, mystical-thinking, fact-ignoring, limp-wristed, lotus-eating dualist because he sure as hell ain't me! > I'm tempted to recommend that such people write out "I > am what my brain does" 1000 times, in the hope that > enlightenment will strike, but to be honest, I doubt > it would work. You forgot the second half of that: "But what someone else's brain does is someone else". -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From timhalterman at gmail.com Tue Oct 26 14:23:46 2010 From: timhalterman at gmail.com (Tim Halterman) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:23:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CC6E0B4.7080702@speakeasy.net> References: <471435.42384.qm@web114409.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC6E0B4.7080702@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: Everything else being the same both entities still exist in different points in space. If it was a copy of my own conciousness at that time that existed in both places we'd probably work together to achieve grander goals. However we'd also have the understanding that at some point there should be only one entity in the universe as seperation would result in an absence of knowledge in terms of perspective. I am only who I am in an instant. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dan_ust at yahoo.com Tue Oct 26 14:28:50 2010 From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 07:28:50 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Evolution of hypnosis susceptibility/was Re: Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: <4CC4BF8D.9060608@satx.rr.com> References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> <4CC4BF8D.9060608@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <433031.88796.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Maybe. Could it also be related to predation? Predators usually have to focus on prey. Granted, humans were not top level predators -- they were catfood much of the time, no? --?but like many primates,?humans or their ancestors,?seem to have engaged in some predation. But your view seems more correct here. How to test this? On an unrelated note, do you feel this should be the new national anthem for the US? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnwTuDAQwN0 Regards, Dan ----- Original Message ---- From: Damien Broderick To: ExI chat list Sent: Sun, October 24, 2010 7:21:49 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] Physics versus psychology On 10/24/2010 6:02 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > But hypnosis has me baffled.? I can't come up with a reason the > psychological trait engaged in hypnosis has any survival or > reproductive advantage at all. It's a while since I look at the literature, but I gather that hypnosis is regarded as an instance of attention-capture; the "suggestible" who respond best probably exempflify strongly what happens to us all during collective episodes of focused attention on a leader or the mood of one's group. In a memetic animal like H. sapiens, I think the value of such a trait is pretty obvious. 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 Tue Oct 26 14:49:11 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:49:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <364035E2-F6CA-4F92-B739-563093FF0921@bellsouth.net> On Oct 26, 2010, at 2:22 AM, Alan Grimes wrote: > Lets say you went in for a non-destructive uploading. Lets say that, to > your great surprise, you woke up in both situations simultaneously. > While retaining your original consciousness, you also, at the same time, > and in the same way, experienced everything your upload did (and vice > versa). What say you to that? I'd say that the two beings have a common history and at the start common memories, so there wouldn't really be two separate beings but only one. However because of random quantum fluctuations, they would start to diverge very soon after the upload was made and become different beings; although they would still have a common history and would both have an equal right to call themselves you. I don't know exactly how long "very soon" is, my guess would be a second or two but maybe under ideal conditions you could stretch that out for an hour or two before the accumulation of sub-microscopic differences led to macroscopic differences and the formation of different memories and thus the creation of different beings. > I would work to improve the situation of both sides of my being without > malice or prejudice. There is no disputing matters of taste but that isn't what I'd do. Although I would have no malice against him (except that the other John K Clark shouldn't be demanding use of my bank account, oddly enough he says exactly the same thing) but I'd retain my prejudice. Like most people I usually place my interests above that of others, especially those trying to use my bank account. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rpwl at lightlink.com Tue Oct 26 15:03:43 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:03:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4CC6EDCF.7080500@lightlink.com> Alan Grimes wrote: > While I'm waiting for my evening medication to kick in, lets see if I > can finish a quick little vignette before I go to sleap. > > > Lets say you went in for a non-destructive uploading. Lets say that, to > your great surprise, you woke up in both situations simultaneously. > While retaining your original consciousness, you also, at the same time, > and in the same way, experienced everything your upload did (and vice > versa). > > What say you to that? > > I would say that I would find that situation very interesting and I > would work to improve the situation of both sides of my being without > malice or prejudice. If the link between the two halves of my being were > sufficiently robust, I would evolve the uploaded part so that it would > be as effective as possible in its situation while providing my original > self with the upgrades it wants and use both halves to work towards > paradise. =) This makes no sense. The newly created entity and the original would each have their own consciousness, by default. Are you postulating that some mechanism be set up to unify the two? In that case you have to decide how the two cognitive systems are to handle conflicts. That is a VERY big job, but until you do it, every answer depends on assumptions about that reconciliation. And, it makes no sense to say that "to your great surprise, you woke up in both situations simultaneously" because you would know ahead of time whether this situation was going to pertain. All this is based on a coherent theory of consciousness. Without that, any answer would be idle speculation. Richard Loosemore From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Oct 26 15:15:34 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 08:15:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] "Psychic" octopus dies Message-ID: I suppose having precognition powers wears down a poor octopus... http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69P1PI20101026 John ; ) From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Oct 26 15:18:55 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:18:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CC6EDCF.7080500@lightlink.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <4CC6EDCF.7080500@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <1D421433-DD2A-4B75-B93C-66F37EF8E50B@bellsouth.net> On Oct 26, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote: > The newly created entity and the original would each have their own consciousness, by default. That sure as hell isn't my default because unlike most people, even most people on this list who should know better, I don't have a superstition regarding atoms; and let's face it, if this thread continues for much longer people are going to start talking about atoms and how they somehow magically confer individuality to us even though atoms have no individuality themselves. Absolutely none! John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Oct 26 15:07:27 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:07:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> On Oct 26, 2010, at 8:49 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > you would expect to end up as either the copy or the original with equal probability. That is true, the probability of ending up as A is exactly 100% and the probability of ending up as B is exactly 100%. > if one of the copy or the original is to be tortured you will be > anxious, because there is a 1/2 probability that you will be tortured. No, there is a 100% chance you will be tortured and a 100% chance you will not be tortured, this is an odd situation certainly but in no way paradoxical, we're just not accustomed to things like that happening. Yet. If something has the same history as you then it is you, but something can have an identical past but not an identical future. When the two futures start to diverge that other fellow would no longer be you, although he would still be Stathis Papaioannou. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rpwl at lightlink.com Tue Oct 26 15:48:24 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:48:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <1D421433-DD2A-4B75-B93C-66F37EF8E50B@bellsouth.net> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <4CC6EDCF.7080500@lightlink.com> <1D421433-DD2A-4B75-B93C-66F37EF8E50B@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CC6F848.1000903@lightlink.com> John Clark wrote: > On Oct 26, 2010, at 11:03 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote: > >> The newly created entity and the original would each have their own >> consciousness, by default. > > That sure as hell isn't my default because unlike most people, even most > people on this list who should know better, I don't have a superstition > regarding atoms; and let's face it, if this thread continues for much > longer people are going to start talking about atoms and how they > somehow magically confer individuality to us even though atoms have no > individuality themselves. Absolutely none! Based on no theory of consciousness that makes any sense, as far as I can see. Therefore just hot air. Richard Loosemore From timhalterman at gmail.com Tue Oct 26 15:51:13 2010 From: timhalterman at gmail.com (Tim Halterman) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 10:51:13 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: > > > If something has the same history as you then it is you, but something can > have an identical past but not an identical future. When the two futures > start to diverge that other fellow would no longer be you, although he would > still be Stathis Papaioannou. > > John K Clark > I have to disagree here, I cannot see how you can somehow make one into two and then not have the same power to take two into one. Define this something, where does the other one come from, if it comes from somewhere other than the other one you have a different history. It looks to me like this is breaking the laws of physics. To me atoms do have individuality, they have their own perspective or placement in the universe. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Oct 26 16:01:06 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 11:01:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Homeopathy? In-Reply-To: <680014.10751.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <680014.10751.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CC6FB42.2070308@satx.rr.com> I know nothing about this topic (except that I have always assumed it was nonsense for all the obvious reasons--e.g. if impossibly small traces of stuff the water was once in contact with has an effect, why don't we all get poisoned when we drink from the faucet), but a senior scientist I know commented: < Structured water has become of interest lately. See these refs: 1. a review of water structure, and possible relevance to homeopathy, at http://site.fixherpes.com/roy_structure_water.pdf 2. computer simulations showing growth of structure in liquid water and explanations in terms of cooperativity, at http://arxiv.org/abs/cond-mat/0206354 3. the experimental work of Gerald Pollack of the U. of Washington, including a video of a official university lecture that he gave, available both on YouTube and the UoW web site. > ?For the past decade the UW researcher has been convincing > worldwide audiences that water isn?t quite a liquid. In many cases > ? in the neighborhood of electrically charged, or water-loving, > surfaces ? it?s more like a gel, or a liquid crystal.? ? > ?We found something astonishing,? Pollack recalls. A few of his > scientific predecessors had proposed that a charged surface could > cause water molecules to line up, as they do in a crystal, as far out > as 100 molecules. But his experiments showed dissolved particles > disappeared and light waves behaved differently ? two clues that > the water molecules are lined up ? in a layer 1 million molecules > wide. That?s more than 10,000 times what was previously believed. > > Recently, independent research confirmed his group?s early results, > which initially drew skepticism from the scientific establishment > because they question long-held premises.? > Damien Broderick From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Oct 26 16:07:19 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:07:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CC6F848.1000903@lightlink.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <4CC6EDCF.7080500@lightlink.com> <1D421433-DD2A-4B75-B93C-66F37EF8E50B@bellsouth.net> <4CC6F848.1000903@lightlink.com> Message-ID: On Oct 26, 2010, at 11:48 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote: > Based on no theory of consciousness that makes any sense, as far as I can see. Therefore just hot air. I don't base it on any theory of consciousness, but not because such things are hard to come by but because consciousness theories are far too easy to come by (but not theories of intelligence!) because there are no experimental facts they need to explain; they all work equally well even though they are contradictory, and thus they are all equally useless. Instead I base it on the theory that if science tells us that there is no difference between two things then there is no difference between two things. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Oct 26 16:34:34 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 12:34:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <87644CE8-C27B-4E19-9C35-C2C3243B5CB6@bellsouth.net> On Oct 26, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Tim Halterman wrote: > I cannot see how you can somehow make one into two and then not have the same power to take two into one. It would take another step but you could merge the two together and create a third being that remembers doing two things at the same time. Odd but not paradoxical. > Define this something No. Definitions are for wimps, examples rule. > It looks to me like this is breaking the laws of physics. And what law of physics would that be? > > To me atoms do have individuality Well of course they do to you, most people think atoms have individuality but science doesn't think so, science thinks atoms have no scratches on them to tell one from the other. Even most people on this list say to hell with science and, although they try to find another word to sound scientific, insist that there must be some sort of atomic soul. As for me, I don't even think humans have a soul so I sure as hell don't think atoms do. > they have their own perspective or placement in the universe. And there is an experiment to test if this theory is true or false. If atoms have individuality then when you exchange two hydrogen atoms in the same quantum state you should observe something happening; but nothing happens, you can't even be certain a exchange actually took place. And by the way this is the idea behind Exchange Forces, one of the foundations of modern physics. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Oct 26 17:37:23 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:37:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "Psychic" octopus dies In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 11:15 AM, John Grigg wrote: > I suppose having precognition powers wears down a poor octopus... > > http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE69P1PI20101026 It's a conspiracy. You know how many different factions wanted that precogtopus dead? From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Oct 26 16:36:40 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 09:36:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Evolution of hypnosis susceptibility/was Re: Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: <433031.88796.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> <4CC4BF8D.9060608@satx.rr.com> <433031.88796.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 7:28 AM, Dan wrote: > Maybe. Could it also be related to predation? Predators usually have to focus on > prey. Granted, humans were not top level predators -- they were catfood much of > the time, no? --?but like many primates,?humans or their ancestors,?seem to have > engaged in some predation. But your view seems more correct here. How to test > this? Humans have been top level predators for a *long* time. We displaced lions (another social predator) from most of their former range, and like lions self predation is the ultimate check that keeps human numbers within the ecological limit of the environment to feed them. This has been the case long enough for specific psychological mechanisms to evolve. I suppose hypnosis could be related to something involving humans being predators. If so, I would expect chimps to have it and bonobos not since chimps are predators and bonobos are not. Keith > On an unrelated note, do you feel this should be the new national anthem for the > US? > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnwTuDAQwN0 > > Regards, > > Dan > > > ----- Original Message ---- > From: Damien Broderick > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Sun, October 24, 2010 7:21:49 PM > Subject: Re: [ExI] Physics versus psychology > > On 10/24/2010 6:02 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >> But hypnosis has me baffled.? I can't come up with a reason the >> psychological trait engaged in hypnosis has any survival or >> reproductive advantage at all. > > It's a while since I look at the literature, but I gather that hypnosis is > regarded as an instance of attention-capture; the "suggestible" who respond best > probably exempflify strongly what happens to us all during collective episodes > of focused attention on a leader or the mood of one's group. In a memetic animal > like H. sapiens, I think the value of such a trait is pretty obvious. > > 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 > From giulio at gmail.com Tue Oct 26 17:42:07 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:42:07 +0200 Subject: [ExI] TransVision 2010, October 22-24, 2010 Message-ID: TransVision 2010, October 22-24, 2010 http://giulioprisco.blogspot.com/2010/10/transvision-2010-october-22-24-2010.html TransVision 2010 is over! I wish to thank all speakers and participants, those who came to Milan and those who participated remotely via Teleplace. Special thanks to Kim for her work at the main Teleplace workstation and for handling many technical problems, and to Cosimo and Jacopo for their work at the HD video camera. I wish to thank the volunteer Italian to English translator (I am not mentioning your name here because I guess you prefer it this way, but you know who you are and thank you so much), who gave also a great unscheduled presentation of the Polytopia Project. And of course I also want to thank Riccardo and Stefano for their support in organizing and running the conference. In particular Stefano should really have stayed at home to recover from recent surgery, but he made a special effort to be with us. In the first two pictures, Dan Massey and Max More giving their talks. In the foreground, the Terasem 1 O'Neill Island One Space Habitat, a Bernal sphere model built by Simon Deering for the Terasem Movement of Martine Rothblatt and presented at TV10 by Khannea Suntzu. The model is now on its way to Florida to be delivered to the Terasem Movement. We had many great talks, not only about visionary technologies but also about literature, politics, philosophy and art. The second half of the first day has been dedicated to Italian neo-Futurist literary and artistic movement, but strike neo- because Futurism is always Neo by definition. I have been disappointed by not seeing as many people as I hoped: I counted about 65 participants in Milan over 3 days including a dog. The problem is that participating in conferences costs money and time, and in my own presentation (which I shortened to less than ten minutes to make time for other speakers) I proposed online conferences 2.0 as a solution. We had about 30 remote participants in the in the TVirtual online extension of TransVision 2010, hosted by the teleXLR8 project based on the Teleplace online telepresence platform. Remote participants have been able to watch all talks in realtime, and interact with speakers and other participants. In the picture above, Max More's talk is shown to remote participants in Teleplace, and the virtual Teleplace conference hall is shown to the participants in Milan. We used two Teleplace workstations, one to stream the video and voice of the speaker and to interact with remote participants, and one to stream the speaker's slides. Lesson learned: if the text on the slides is small it is better to upload also the original .ppt or .pdf to Teleplace. We did this in realtime during the conference, but we should have done it in advance. For those speakers without presentations in .ppt or .pdf, we used the second Teleplace workstation to show the audience in Milan to the audience in Teleplace. In the afternoon of the second day we have reversed the procedure outlined above and shown remote talks from speakers in Teleplace to the audience in Milan. After great talks by Eugen Leitl and Robert Geraci, Natasha Vita-More started her talk (picture above)... but 20 minutes into Natasha's talk all the Internet connections in the conference hall in Milan died, perhaps due to overload caused by too many WiFi connections in parallel. The Internet servive provider's technicians could not fix the problem. The remote participants in Teleplace continued without us, and we have video recordings of the talks by remote speakers. However, all remote speakers have been invited to repeat their talks to the teleXLR8 community. In the morning of the third day, not only the Internet connections in the conference hall were still dead, but also the screen projection system was dead! I had a (very) heavy-handed "exchange of views" with the hotel's personnel (wife says I can be quite unpleasant on occasions), and the technical problems were fixed. This was a very interesting event, with great talks by great speakers. I am happy to have seen again many old friends and made many new ones. In the picture above, some speakers and participants at a dinner after the end of the conference. I was not really able to pay attention to any of the talks including my own, and I look forward to watching the video coverage. We recorded everything on video, both in HD with the cameras on site, and from Teleplace. The videos will be available online and on the conference's DVD proceedings. The videos recorded in Teleplace will be available online in a few days, and those recorded on site in a few weeks. I have started two blog posts as containers and index pages for material to be posted later. Both posts have the same title as this one. The post on the TransVision 2010 blog will have links to the HD videos recorded in Milan, and the post on the teleXLR8 blog will have links to the videos recorded in Teleplace. The Twitter feed created by participants at #TV2010 has the twitting history of the conference. From timhalterman at gmail.com Tue Oct 26 18:36:07 2010 From: timhalterman at gmail.com (Tim Halterman) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:36:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <87644CE8-C27B-4E19-9C35-C2C3243B5CB6@bellsouth.net> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <87644CE8-C27B-4E19-9C35-C2C3243B5CB6@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/26 John Clark > On Oct 26, 2010, at 11:51 AM, Tim Halterman wrote: > > I cannot see how you can somehow make one into two and then not have the > same power to take two into one. > > > It would take another step but you could merge the two together and create > a third being that remembers doing two things at the same time. Odd but not > paradoxical. > > I have no problem with this but this third is different from the two and different from the one the two came from. > Define this something > > > No. Definitions are for wimps, examples rule. > > > It looks to me like this is breaking the laws of physics. > > > And what law of physics would that be? > > The law of conservation of mass. > > To me atoms do have individuality > > > Well of course they do to you, most people think atoms have individuality > but science doesn't think so, science thinks atoms have no scratches on them > to tell one from the other. Even most people on this list say to hell with > science and, although they try to find another word to sound scientific, > insist that there must be some sort of atomic soul. As for me, I don't even > think humans have a soul so I sure as hell don't think atoms do. > > I could look at two atoms and say they look the same, it does not mean they are the same atom. I do not believe atoms have a soul but you still cannot have two of the same. Two atoms cannot exist in the same space at the same time. > they have their own perspective or placement in the universe. > > > And there is an experiment to test if this theory is true or false. If > atoms have individuality then when you exchange two hydrogen atoms in the > same quantum state you should observe something happening; but nothing > happens, you can't even be certain a exchange actually took place. And by > the way this is the idea behind Exchange Forces, one of the foundations of > modern physics. > > John K Clark > I would agree that there is nothing observable to us here, at least in our current state of measurement and possibly never. Just because you can't perceive anything does not mean that the two atoms are the same. One is closer to x than the other, that is a difference. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Tue Oct 26 19:01:12 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:01:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: [universalimmortalism] Collaboration in Europe and Beyond In-Reply-To: <374664938.400981288118801932.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> References: <374664938.400981288118801932.JavaMail.ngmail@webmail19.arcor-online.net> Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Date: Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 1:46 PM Subject: [universalimmortalism] Collaboration in Europe and Beyond To: universalimmortalism at yahoogroups.com What do you think when SfUI is getting engaged in the below effort, just to help out a bit for a rather international cooperation? As announced at the group People towards Cryonics for the future existence of Humans http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=103217190633 and posted to http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=140524639870&topic=16654 at the Asteromed association's group to follow up a European collaboration for the preservation of humans: Seeking Free Cryonics at CryoFreedom. A new proposal for a contract between Asteromed and CryoFreedom http://cryofreedom.ru/ in which we welcomed their initiator Alexey Immorta Potapov. It's our honor to direct the following idea to him: (beginning of draft) This proposal is about a contract for the funding of cryopreservation and related services. This non-exclusive contract has to be between Asteromed and its members (client) and CryoFreedom (provider). The client agrees to pay a funding fee to the provider. The funding fee will be $4,000 payable within 5 years (until the end of 2015). The fee can be paid in many discretionary installments. The amount of $4,000 consists of the actual $3,000 price for cryosusupension plus $1,000 for an interest rate of something more than 5 percent per year for 5 years. After the funding fee has been fully settled by the client, the provider must be willing to cryopreserve one single member from the client in one occasion that might become necessary within the next 50 years. So the contract is allowing a waiting time of up to 50 years (until the end of 2060), because the occasion when cryopreservation might occur is uncertain. When cryopreservation hasn't occurred within this waiting time, the contract will be fulfilled and the client will not seek refunding from the provider. (end of draft) An arrangement as described above is suited to grant free cryonics to the first of our Asteromed members who wants cryosuspension in an emergency situation while being unable to finance it. Being unable could be due to reasons like social hardship in connection with someone's family members who aren't supportive to cryonics or because of something like personal bankruptcy. We don't hope that such hardship or bankruptcy will happen to one of our members, but it's better to being prepared - just like having insurance. Asteromed has always been free, we never receive money from earnings like donations and there were never membership fees to pay. We can have financial liabilities which are getting compensated by privately paid commitments from our members. Today it occurred to me that Alexey Immorta Potapov responded to the above: (beginning of resp.) I dindn't saw this proposal. Why dont you send it to me 5 mont ago? -- Please notify conditions of cryonics patient present at Moscow or Voronezh, Russia. We do not ship from elswhere for the moment. (end of resp.) It's so convenient to post messages to related groups while anyone can comment on them. Of cause, conditions of cryonics patient present at Moscow would be all right. That's where the great airport is and many trains are. Somehow it looks like as if it may be easyer for the client to make the payments to CryoFreedom by Western Union. Previously, the bank data I had on the contract from KrioRus contained some numbers and I was so confused. So far I was unable figure what numbers to fill in the blanks for various accounts on the form for international money transfer a local bank in Germany had. It seems as if Western Union would probably be easy enough for me to figure how to make payments with. BTW, it may happen now that a needy Asteromed member might still be living in 50 years. So these clauses would be convenient to add to the proposal: 1: It is entirely within the provider's discretion that the contract should be extended to work for more than 50 years. 2: Conditions of cryonics patient present at Moscow. 3: Payment with Western Union. /// __._,_.___ Reply to sender| Reply to group| Reply via web post| Start a New Topic Messages in this topic( 1) Recent Activity: Visit Your Group -- Society for Universal Immortalism discussion mailing list http://www.universalimmortalism.org/ MARKETPLACE Get great advice about dogs and cats. Visit the Dog & Cat Answers Center. ------------------------------ Stay on top of your group activity without leaving the page you're on - Get the Yahoo! Toolbar now. ------------------------------ Hobbies & Activities Zone: Find others who share your passions! Explore new interests. [image: Yahoo! Groups] Switch to: Text-Only, Daily Digest? Unsubscribe? Terms of Use . __,_._,___ -- - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Tue Oct 26 19:50:20 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 15:50:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <87644CE8-C27B-4E19-9C35-C2C3243B5CB6@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Oct 26, 2010, at 2:36 PM, Tim Halterman wrote: >> It would take another step but you could merge the two together and create a third being that remembers doing two things at the same time. Odd but not paradoxical. >> > I have no problem with this but this third is different from the two and different from the one the two came from. Yes, all three would be different from one another but they would all be Tim Halterman because they all share a common history, even if they don't have a common future > > >>> It looks to me like this is breaking the laws of physics. > >> And what law of physics would that be? > > > > The law of conservation of mass. Consciousness has no mass, and there is no law of the conservation of adjectives (information); and that's what you are, you are the way matter behaves when it is organized in a Timhalterman way. Up to now there was only one chunk of matter in the universe organized that way but there is no reason to think that will always be true. >> there is an experiment to test if this theory is true or false. If atoms have individuality then when you exchange two hydrogen atoms in the same quantum state you should observe something happening; but nothing happens, you can't even be certain a exchange actually took place. >>> >> > I would agree that there is nothing observable to us here, at least in our current state of measurement and possibly never. Just because you can't perceive anything does not mean that the two atoms are the same. Like I say, I don't believe in the soul, atomic or human. > One is closer to x than the other, that is a difference. How do you know one is closer, how do you know they are not constantly exchanging positions and what difference would it make if they did? If you and I instantly exchanged positions it would profoundly change things because we both have individuality; we'd both end up in a place we've never seen before and remember the bizarre experience for the rest of our lives, but if you exchange 2 hydrogen atoms absolutely nothing observable changes, not to the hydrogen atoms and not to anything that comes into contact with them. In addition to the above profound difficulty in basing your theory of consciousness on atoms you also have to explain why you remain the same person even after you eat or excrete. > I do not believe atoms have a soul You may not believe in the word "soul" but like most people around here you do believe in the idea of a soul. I don't. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Tue Oct 26 17:22:19 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 13:22:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <364035E2-F6CA-4F92-B739-563093FF0921@bellsouth.net> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <364035E2-F6CA-4F92-B739-563093FF0921@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/26 John Clark > > I'd say that the two beings have a common history and at the start common > memories, so there wouldn't really be two separate beings but only one. > But we're talking about an original and an upload, so there would be two separate beings as soon as the upload is activated--one running on the "real" atomic substrate and one running on the upload host. However because of random quantum fluctuations, they would start to diverge > very soon after the upload was made and become different beings; although > they would still have a common history and would both have an equal right to > call themselves you. > They might both feel that way, but not necessarily. The upload could be aware that it's a virtual copy and consider itself a fork of the original, and unable to claim that it *is* the original. Also, the law may well not grant both entities the same rights. The upload would be unlikely to be able to marry a non-upload, and may not even be considered a person. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Oct 26 21:51:22 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 14:51:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Evolution of hypnosis susceptibility/was Re: Physicsversus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com><4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com><938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net><4CC4BF8D.9060608@satx.rr.com><433031.88796.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9AA94E6D777C46F39941ECA4A65BCACA@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Keith Henson ... > I suppose hypnosis could be related to something involving > humans being predators... Large predator brains may have imperfect pattern recognition, but everything can recognize the motion of a fleeing beast. Consequently many beasts which rely solely on their ability to flee a predator would be best served to freeze when confronted with danger, as deer are well known to do, damn em. I don't know how that would translate to hypnosis, if at all. >... If so, I would expect chimps to have > it and bonobos not since chimps are predators and bonobos are not. > > Keith Cool thanks Keith, I did not know this. Donald Johanson's later work (after the Lucy discovery) was all the rage in the early 1980s. He used SEMs to show that fossil antelope bones from a couple million years ago had lion tooth marks below stone butcher marks, suggesting that the lions took the beast down to start with, then the protohumans somehow took the prey away from them. I mentioned this to a classmate who grew up in Africa. He made a comment which blew me away. He said it wouldn't surprise him a bit, for in some parts of Africa, they still get meat that way to this day. They wait until the cats take down a beast, then ignite a branch and walk towards the scene of the kill. Lions are tough bastards, but they will not mess with a primate carrying a burning bush. Unless of course the bush burns out (doh!). I have long pondered if speciation between humans and chimps was accelerated by the fact that for some reason the protohumans figured out that little burning bush trick, and the chimps didn't, or just couldn't master it. This would represent the technology segregation we talk about today, that separates those humans who use electronics from those who do not. Today it is called the digital divide. Back then it was what we might call the conflagration chasm. spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Tue Oct 26 23:24:46 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 18:24:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] this might sting your interest Message-ID: <4CC7633E.2070002@satx.rr.com> Bumblebees can find the solution to a complex mathematical problem which keeps computers busy for days. Scientists at Queen Mary, University of London and Royal Holloway, University of London have discovered that bees learn to fly the shortest possible route between flowers even if they discover the flowers in a different order. Bees are effectively solving the 'Travelling Salesman Problem', and these are the first animals found to do this. The Travelling Salesman must find the shortest route that allows him to visit all locations on his route. Computers solve it by comparing the length of all possible routes and choosing the shortest. However, bees solve it without computer assistance using a brain the size of grass seed. Professor Lars Chittka from Queen Mary's School of Biological and Chemical Sciences said: "In nature, bees have to link hundreds of flowers in a way that minimises travel distance, and then reliably find their way home - not a trivial feat if you have a brain the size of a pinhead! Indeed such travelling salesmen problems keep supercomputers busy for days. Studying how bee brains solve such challenging tasks might allow us to identify the minimal neural circuitry required for complex problem solving." The team used computer controlled artificial flowers to test whether bees would follow a route defined by the order in which they discovered the flowers or if they would find the shortest route. After exploring the location of the flowers, bees quickly learned to fly the shortest route. As well as enhancing our understanding of how bees move around the landscape pollinating crops and wild flowers, this research, which is due to be published in The American Naturalist this week, has other applications. Our lifestyle relies on networks such as traffic on the roads, information flow on the web and business supply chains. By understanding how bees can solve their problem with such a tiny brain we can improve our management of these everyday networks without needing lots of computer time. Co-author and Queen Mary colleague, Dr. Mathieu Lihoreau adds: "There is a common perception that smaller brains constrain animals to be simple reflex machines. But our work with bees shows advanced cognitive capacities with very limited neuron numbers. There is an urgent need to understand the neuronal hardware underpinning animal intelligence, and relatively simple nervous systems such as those of insects make this mystery more tractable." From stathisp at gmail.com Tue Oct 26 23:35:20 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:35:20 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/27 John Clark : > On Oct 26, 2010, at 8:49 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > you would expect to end up as either?the copy or the original with equal > probability. > > That is true, the probability of ending up as A is exactly 100% and the > probability of ending up as B is exactly 100%. > > if one of the copy or the original is to be tortured you will be > anxious, because there is a 1/2 probability that you will be tortured. > > No, there is a 100% chance you will be tortured and a 100% chance you will > not be tortured, this is an odd situation certainly but in no way > paradoxical, we're just not accustomed to things like that happening. Yet. > If something has the same history as you then it is you, but something can > have an identical past but not an identical future. When the two futures > start to diverge that other fellow would no longer be you, although he would > still be Stathis Papaioannou. If you were given the choice of being duplicated a million times with one of the copies being tortured or once with one of the copies being tortured would you have any preference for one or the other case, given that in both cases it is certain that there will be one individual who is tortured? -- Stathis Papaioannou From spike66 at att.net Tue Oct 26 23:46:07 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 16:46:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] this might sting your interest In-Reply-To: <4CC7633E.2070002@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC7633E.2070002@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <29C69017F9FE457F998604DF3269E97B@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick > Subject: [ExI] this might sting your interest > > > > Bumblebees can find the solution to a complex mathematical > problem which keeps computers busy for days. > > Scientists at Queen Mary, University of London and Royal > Holloway, University of London have discovered that bees > learn to fly the shortest possible route between flowers even > if they discover the flowers in a different order. Bees are > effectively solving the 'Travelling Salesman Problem', and > these are the first animals found to do this... > relatively simple nervous systems such as those of insects > make this mystery more tractable." I have been pondering this in the past couple days. I have a google alert on bees, so it sent me the link. I don't know what the heck to make of it. Bees do some amazing things with their little bit of brain. Apparently there exists some algorithm for solving the travelling saleman problem that we haven't discovered yet, but evolution has. To state the absolutely obvious: is this wicked cool or what! {8-] spike From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 27 00:02:04 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 19:02:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> On 10/26/2010 6:35 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > If you were given the choice of being duplicated a million times with > one of the copies being tortured or once with one of the copies being > tortured would you have any preference for one or the other case, > given that in both cases it is certain that there will be one > individual who is tortured? Aside from empathy and indignation at cruelty, why should it matter to *me* if one of the *copies* is tortured? --as long as I, the original, am allowed to go unmolested. (Well, except for the fear that the tortured copy might remain alive and hunt me down vengefully for a touch of the same treatment.) Damien Broderick From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Wed Oct 27 00:15:00 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 17:15:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Orville Schell- China expert Message-ID: Orville Schell, an Asian studies scholar and prominent journalist, spoke last night at the Scottsdale Performing Arts Center. This frail (the epitome of a very aged Ivy Leaguer) but charmingly earnest man shared his troubling insights with us. He is extremely impressed both with China's rapid growth over the last two decades, and the ability of the Communist regime to maintain power. But he admitted deep reservations about China's human rights record and the nature of their global influence as they grow in power. Schell said he had no crystal ball to give a certain prediction of the future, and he felt things could easily go either way, in terms of the Communists keeping a tight hold on power with very limited civil liberties allowed, or the other scenario being where a societal blow-up causes radical political change in ways the U.S. would like to see. He felt the regime and society is tightly wound and the leadership, despite their tyrannical power, tread carefully to avoid another Tiananmen Square (Chinese leaders feel they might have narrowly avoided a toppling & it could happen again). The Chinese govt. over the years liked to blame foreigners for China's problems, but that incident in particular shook the Chinese psyche deeply because they could only blame themselves for what happened. China he stated, does not have a firm foundation and sense of itself, as compared to the United States with it's Constitution, Bill of Rights, and moral compass (that we often fail to live up to, as he admitted). The Chinese have Confucianism, Buddhism, Communism, Christianity, etc., but nothing as defining as what our relatively new nation has to guide it. And so they are in some ways feeling their way toward the future and trying as a people to define themselves. But he did say that the Chinese people (top to bottom) have a very strong sense of cultural destiny/nationalism that drives them forward, while on the other hand, Americans have largely lost this burning passion. He spoke in detail about his recent trips to China and how he finds the gigantic airports, road systems, stores, bridges and general infrastructure there to be stunning. At one time China was known for shoddy construction, but he said those days are largely past, and a visit to a gorgeous and utterly massive performing arts center there made his jaw drop in wonder. During his regular visits there (about every three months or so), Schell notices the many changes due to the explosive growth. He stated that they are overtaking the U.S. at a dizzying rate that is not fully grasped in the nation, despite all the talk over here about China. Schell was very impressed at how the Chinese Communist regime has made a "Leninist market economy" work so well. In the U.S. we mock the idea of the classic Soviet style "five year plans," but he said the Chinese are master long-term planners, and they allocate vast resources toward scientific research centers, public infrastructure, green-tech, or whatever else they see as vital that needs financial nurturing. The government guides and nourishes their free market economy in ways that have so far reaped great rewards. And the Chinese have the *deep pockets* to grow their nation. But on the other hand, Schell said the United States govt. is a basketcase of rival political factions who have a hard time getting anything done, due to all the infighting! And due to our inability to control our debt, we have much less money than the Chinese to spend on vital things such as science research or infrastructure. He spent many years in Washington and what he saw there utterly disappointed him. Regarding technology and business, he stated that Americans are gifted innovators, and the Chinese have a long way to go to fully develop this trait. But he thought it was crazy that we allow foreign students to come here and get advanced science degrees, but then we order them home, rather than letting them get citizenship and settle here! And now many Chinese students don't even want to live here, because they feel there is greater opportunity in their homeland! I found it very painful when Schell admitted his doubts about whether the American/Western model of government is really the best in the world, and what may just triumph in the end. He confessed that he had a sinking feeling the Chinese "Leninist Market" system may prove superior to our own beloved democratic system, because they can save and spend wisely, and plan & act in long-term ways, without our crippling bickering, deadlock and short-sighted self-interest. But he admitted that China does have its challenges. Pollution is a major problem, but the Chinese are trying to deal with it by investing vastly more money than we are to develop green-tech. Another huge fear of the regime is that the 170 million rural people who moved to the cities to find factory and construction jobs, might rebel if the economy slows down and many of them become unemployed. The govt does not ever want to deploy large numbers of military forces to put down their own people, but facing such monstrous numbers would be nightmarish for conventional law enforcement. Also, China needs to become much more of a consumer economy, as compared to being an exporting economy. And so they must maintain economic growth to expand their middle class. Schell touched on Taiwan, saying the new generation of leaders there are much more sensitive to the wishes of the mainland, and so he sees hope in things being resolved non-violently. As for Tibet, the Chinese feel it was once part of their ancient empire, and so they have the right to it. And they view the Tibetans as ingrates for not appreciating the billions poured into the nation, along with Chinese settlers! I enjoyed his candor and was taken aback by his painful honesty about America's self-destructiveness as compared to Chinese ascension. I had expected to hear how China was not really a true challenger and that things were being overstated in the media, but this was not to be. As I looked over the audience I notice very few people in their twenties or even thirties. I found this both sad and astonishing, since young people are the ones who will have to deal with this coming of age rival superpower that within 15 years will outstrip us economically. I could have been visiting a retirement home... There was a Q & A session, but some of the subjects I wanted to see addressed, were not. I desired his opinion about the growth of the Chinese military, the space program, and also their very successful espionage machine that steals a great deal from us (so much for innovation...). And I would have enjoyed his insights about the lack of young people in the audience. I learned that there is an annual conference in Scottsdale, Arizona about the U.S./China relationship, but that this year it was cancelled. And yet fortunately, Orville Schell still came to speak. http://orvilleschell.com/index.htm John Grigg . From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Oct 27 02:49:43 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:49:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Evolution of hypnosis susceptibility/was Re: Physicsversus psychology In-Reply-To: <9AA94E6D777C46F39941ECA4A65BCACA@spike> References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com> <4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com> <938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net> <4CC4BF8D.9060608@satx.rr.com> <433031.88796.qm@web30106.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <9AA94E6D777C46F39941ECA4A65BCACA@spike> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 5:51 PM, spike wrote: > separates those humans who use electronics from those who do not. ?Today it > is called the digital divide. ?Back then it was what we might call the > conflagration chasm. It was still called the digital divide but it was digital with respect to fingers - specifically opposable thumbs. From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Oct 27 02:55:54 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:55:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] this might sting your interest In-Reply-To: <29C69017F9FE457F998604DF3269E97B@spike> References: <4CC7633E.2070002@satx.rr.com> <29C69017F9FE457F998604DF3269E97B@spike> Message-ID: On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 7:46 PM, spike wrote: >> ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick >> Subject: [ExI] this might sting your interest > > > I have been pondering this in the past couple days. ?I have a google alert > on bees, so it sent me the link. ?I don't know what the heck to make of it. > Bees do some amazing things with their little bit of brain. ?Apparently > there exists some algorithm for solving the travelling saleman problem that > we haven't discovered yet, but evolution has. ?To state the absolutely > obvious: is this wicked cool or what! Do the bees communicate? Are they testing the problem solving skills of a single bee or the ability of a clustered computing architecture with hundreds or thousands of nodes? The majority of individual computers on the internet are fairly uninteresting, but in total the Internet is practically inconceivable. Do you think hypothesis about bees will translate easily to ants? From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Oct 27 04:04:01 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:04:01 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 11:02 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 10/26/2010 6:35 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> If you were given the choice of being duplicated a million times with >> one of the copies being tortured or once with one of the copies being >> tortured would you have any preference for one or the other case, >> given that in both cases it is certain that there will be one >> individual who is tortured? > > Aside from empathy and indignation at cruelty, why should it matter to *me* > if one of the *copies* is tortured? --as long as I, the original, am allowed > to go unmolested. (Well, except for the fear that the tortured copy might > remain alive and hunt me down vengefully for a touch of the same treatment.) One possible way to answer is to refer to the MWI of QM. Regardless of whether it is the truth or not, it is usually agreed that it *could* be the truth: it is compatible with all our observations, including our subjective experiences of probability. Under a single world view, a 1/million probability of being tortured would be dismissed. You're as likely to win the lottery, and that isn't going to happen. Under a many worlds view, a 1/million probability of being tortured amounts to you being duplicated (at least) a million times and 1/million of those copies being tortured. From my selfish point of view that is subjectively the same as the single world case: I will find myself as one, and only one, of the copies and there is only a 1/million probability that it will be a copy that is tortured, so I don't need to worry about it. You, on the other hand, will want to know which of the copies is the original, and whether that particular copy will be tortured. But the answer to that question is that all the copies are fungible, like subatomic particles: none is the "original" and you have equal chance of ending up as any one of them, hence the subjective impression that you are living in a probabilistic universe. If you disagree with this then you are claiming that our probabilistic world is proof that the MWI is false. Is that what you are claiming? What would you expect to experience if the MWI were in fact true? -- Stathis Papaioannou From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 27 04:18:06 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:18:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> On 10/26/2010 11:04 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Under a many worlds view, a 1/million probability of being tortured > amounts to you being duplicated (at least) a million times and > 1/million of those copies being tortured. From my selfish point of > view that is subjectively the same as the single world case: I will > find myself as one, and only one, of the copies No you won't. You're changing the rules. If there are a million copies to be made, you remain the original instance who was there all along and can have no risk of being tortured. Well, that's what you told us. From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 27 04:40:55 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 21:40:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] the truman show ai, was this might sting your interest In-Reply-To: References: <4CC7633E.2070002@satx.rr.com><29C69017F9FE457F998604DF3269E97B@spike> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty > ... > > > > > > > ...To state the absolutely obvious: is this wicked cool or what! > > Do the bees communicate? Are they testing the problem > solving skills of a single bee or the ability of a clustered > computing architecture with hundreds or thousands of nodes? > ... Do you think hypothesis about bees will translate easily to ants? Good questions, and a hearty I don't know to all. The article was a bit vague on how they drew the conclusion that the bees were actually solving the travelling salesman problem. As so tragically often happens, I suspect that something important was lost in the fog of translating down to the layman's level. An aspect of Damien's science writing for the layman is that he does such a good job of getting the science down without doing unnecessary violence to core message. On a tangent, imagine you are an emergent AI, and you decide to outload. You want to watch and learn from the beasts on earth, but not be detected by, or influence them. You give yourself the prime directive. A logical thing to do would be to inload into bees, for several good reasons, some of which you may be able to think of and add yourself. Bees are plentiful and reproduce quickly. They are not generally devoured by other beasts. They are welcomed by the humans, because they cross pollenate. They get around. They are unlikely to be swatted. They are unlikely to be messed with by humans or beasts, because they have that painful sting. They gather every night back at the hive, so if the AI resides in the form of nanobots, there are plenty of opportunities to transfer from older bees into younger ones on a regular basis. Since the AI inloads into bees and are in a sense a parasite, one thing they could do in compensation is to help the bees by influencing them by some mysterious means to get the most pollen for the least flight. The AI can both solve the travelling saleman problem and can speak bee. Now imagine the emergent AI wants to stay under the human radar so to speak, but occasionally small errors are made, such as the actors in the Truman Show. They occasionally let slip a small observable. An example of such a slip would be if human researchers suddenly noticed that bees were somehow solving the wildly calculation-intensive travelling salesman problem. Of course the AI reads the internet, so they or it realizes evidence of its existence has been detected. So the signal quickly goes out to stop telling the bees how to work the travelling saleman problem. Result, the researchers are never able to reproduce the observation that originally inspired the article, nor is anyone else, so the whole thing is soon forgotten. Damien or any aspiring SF writer, I donate this story idea to anyone who wants to run with it. Actually Damien gave me the idea to start with, in his book Transcension. In that work, he has a device called a liar bee. Damien doesn't explain how a liar bee gets to be one that I recall, but the above would be an example of a physical mechanism. spike From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Oct 27 04:43:59 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 00:43:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <364035E2-F6CA-4F92-B739-563093FF0921@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Oct 26, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > But we're talking about an original and an upload And neither would know which is which unless you told them, and even then they probably wouldn't believe you; both would probably insist they were the original regardless of the evidence, but I wouldn't because I don't care if I'm the original or the copy. > so there would be two separate beings as soon as the upload is activated There would be only one conscious experience provided the two were identical. > The upload could be aware that it's a virtual copy and consider itself a fork of the original Then one would be aware of something that the other is not so the two would no longer be identical. > and unable to claim that it is the original. The original what? It can't be the original atoms since neither entity owns them they just rent them, and it can't be original information since both embody the same information; so what exactly is so original about the original? And I can point to something that is not a thought experiment but actually happens, when a one cell ameba reproduces it splits in have and then the two half's grow back to their previous size, it is not meaningful to ask which is the original and which is the copy. > Also, the law may well not grant both entities the same rights. I was talking about logic and you're talking about the law, the two have absolutely nothing to do with each other. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Oct 27 05:01:25 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 01:01:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: On Oct 26, 2010, at 7:35 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > If you were given the choice of being duplicated a million times with > one of the copies being tortured or once with one of the copies being > tortured would you have any preference for one or the other case, > given that in both cases it is certain that there will be one > individual who is tortured? It wouldn't matter, there is still a 100% chance I will be tortured and a 100% chance I will not be. Making a million copies, or one copy, or no copy at all doesn't matter until things happen to one them but not the other and they start to differentiate. A million identical copies of you running in a million identical environments would produce only one conscious being until Quantum Mechanics or something else got then out of sync. Torture would count as something else. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Oct 27 05:16:24 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 01:16:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Oct 27, 2010, at 12:18 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > If there are a million copies to be made, you remain the original instance who was there all along and can have no risk of being tortured. That is incorrect. There is a 100% chance that when you enter the duplication machine your subjective experience will be of being instantly transported to a torture chamber with a lot of resulting unpleasantness; and there is a 100% chance your subjective experience will be of entering the machine and finding that absolutely nothing happens to you. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 27 05:36:22 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 22:36:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] holy grail, batman! computer sim of a cell Message-ID: <8222144E6FF74A059EAE55E693685AD0@spike> Hey, cool. A local researcher claims he has a software simulation of a cell. He is giving a free lecture on it Thursday afternoon in Palo Alto. If anyone is in the hood and wants to meet up there, we can go make a sooooooshi run afterwards, brutally devour the raw beasts to the brink of extinction. Here's the write-up: The target of our research is a fundamental milestone in biology: to build a computational model that can simulate a complete life cycle of a single cell, taking into account all genes. We will describe our recent efforts to build a model which can track all biological processes, including for example DNA replication, RNA transcription and regulation, protein synthesis, metabolism and cell division, in the smallest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium. We will demonstrate that this whole-cell model can be used to determine the effect of genomic and environmental perturbations on cell behavior, and therefore to pursue critically important questions which have never been addressed before. We are currently creating a web-based platform which will be open-access and open-source, in order to enable these tools and methods to be broadly applied. And here's his street cred: Dr. Covert is an Assistant Professor of Bioengineering at Stanford University. He has a Ph.D., Bioengineering with specialization in Bioinformatics, from the University of California, San Diego (2003) and a B.S., Chemical Engineering, Brigham Young University (1997). In 2004-2006, Dr. Covert held a Postdoctoral Fellowship with the Damon Runyon Cancer Research Foundation, and in 2003 was First Graduate of the Bioinformatics Program, University of California, San Diego. In 1991 - 1997 he had the Ezra Taft Benson Presidential Scholarship at Brigham Young University. So this Mormon guy with the secretive sounding name will see if he can convince us he has found the holy grail of computational biology. I sure hope he has done it. If so, we can write sims that work on other cells, and then can create networks to simulate multicelled beasts, then, given enough computing power, perhaps provided by harnessing the idle processor cycles that YOU are so egregiously WASTING right now, we can eventually simulate evolution, which would sim us from protobonobos to humans and right on past the present day, and lead eventually to a singularity. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 27 06:20:50 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 01:20:50 -0500 Subject: [ExI] holy grail, batman! computer sim of a cell In-Reply-To: <8222144E6FF74A059EAE55E693685AD0@spike> References: <8222144E6FF74A059EAE55E693685AD0@spike> Message-ID: <4CC7C4C2.2090903@satx.rr.com> On 10/27/2010 12:36 AM, spike wrote: > in the smallest known free-living organism, Mycoplasma genitalium. Mycoplasma genitalium, indeed! Dirty young devils! From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 27 06:27:52 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 01:27:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] "Is the Universe a Big Hologram? This Device Could Find Out" Message-ID: <4CC7C668.5000105@satx.rr.com> Is the Universe a Big Hologram? This Device Could Find Out IAN O'NEILL - Astroengine.com During the hunt for the predicted ripples in space-time - known as gravitational waves - physicists stumbled across a rather puzzling phenomenon. Last year, I reported about the findings of scientists using the GEO600 experiment in Germany. Although the hi-tech piece of kit hadn?t turned up evidence for the gravitational waves it was seeking, it did turn up a lot of noise. Before we can understand what this 'noise? is, we need to understand how equipment designed to look for the space-time ripples caused by collisions between black holes and supernova explosions. Gravitational wave detectors are incredibly sensitive to the tiniest change in distance. For example, the GEO600 experiment can detect a fluctuation of an atomic radius over a distance from the Earth to the Sun. This is achieved by firing a laser down a 600 meter long tube where it is split, reflected and directed into an interferometer. The interferometer can detect the tiny phase shifts in the two beams of light predicted to occur should a gravitational wave pass through our local volume of space. This wave is theorized to slightly change the distance between physical objects. Should GEO600 detect a phase change, it could be indicative of a slight change in distance, thus the passage of a gravitational wave. While looking out for a gravitational wave signal, scientists at GEO600 noticed something bizarre. There was inexplicable static in the results they were gathering. After canceling out all artificial sources of the noise, they called in the help of Fermilab?s Craig Hogan to see if his expertise of the quantum world help shed light on this anomalous noise. His response was as baffling as it was mind-blowing. 'It looks like GEO600 is being buffeted by the microscopic quantum convulsions of space-time,? Hogan said. Come again? The signal being detected by GEO600 isn?t a noise source that?s been overlooked, Hogan believes GEO600 is seeing quantum fluctuations in the fabric of space-time itself. This is where things start to get a little freaky. According to Einstein?s view on the universe, space-time should be smooth and continuous. However, this view may need to be modified as space-time may be composed of quantum 'points? if Hogan?s theory is correct. At its finest scale, we should be able to probe down the 'Planck length? which measures 10-35 meters. But the GEO600 experiment detected noise at scales of less than 10-15 meters. As it turns out, Hogan thinks that noise at these scales are caused by a holographic projection from the horizon of our universe. A good analogy is to think about how an image becomes more and more blurry or pixelated the more you zoom in on it. The projection starts off at Planck scale lengths at the Universe?s event horizon, but its projection becomes blurry in our local space-time. This hypothesis comes out of black hole research where the information that falls into a black hole is 'encoded? in the black hole?s event horizon. For the holographic universe to hold true, information must be encoded in the outermost reaches of the Universe and it is projected into our 3 dimensional world. But how can this hypothesis be tested? We need to boost the resolution of a gravitational wave detector-type of kit. Enter the 'Holometer.? Currently under construction in Fermilab, the Holometer (meaning holographic interferometer) will delve deep into this quantum realm at smaller scales than the GEO600 experiment. If Hogan?s idea is correct, the Holometer should detect this quantum noise in the fabric of space-time, throwing our whole perception of the Universe into a spin. From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Oct 27 10:10:12 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:10:12 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 3:18 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 10/26/2010 11:04 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> Under a many worlds view, a 1/million probability of being tortured >> amounts to you being duplicated (at least) a million times and >> 1/million of those copies being tortured. From my selfish point of >> view that is subjectively the same as the single world case: I will >> find myself as one, and only one, of the copies > > No you won't. You're changing the rules. If there are a million copies to be > made, you remain the original instance who was there all along and can have > no risk of being tortured. Well, that's what you told us. But if the copies are fungible then it is probably best to say that the original/copy distinction is meaningless. That is what is supposed to happen under the MWI, and the result is that you feel that you end up one of the versions of yourself with probability proportional to that version's frequency. As I understand your position this is impossible: you think you will end up as the original with probability 1 and as a copy with probability 0. So what do you think would happen if the MWI is correct and there is no original? -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Oct 27 10:15:56 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:15:56 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/27 John Clark : > It wouldn't matter, there is still a 100% chance I will be tortured and a > 100% chance I will not be. Making a million copies, or one copy, or no copy > at all doesn't matter until things happen to one them but not the other and > they start to differentiate. A million identical copies of you running in a > million identical environments would produce only one conscious being until > Quantum Mechanics or something else got then out of sync. Torture would > count as something else. Yes, torturing one of the copies would cause a differentiation, and there is a 1/million probability that you would be the copy that differentiates. On the other hand if there were only 2 copies there would be a 1/2 probability that you would be the one that experiences torture and differentiates. So it is better to go for the million copies. -- Stathis Papaioannou From bbenzai at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 11:25:06 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:25:06 +0100 (BST) Subject: [ExI] this might sting your interest In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <607309.50993.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> > I'd be cautious about this. The article says ""In nature, bees have to link hundreds of flowers .." and "The team used computer controlled artificial flowers to test whether bees would follow a route defined by the order in which they discovered the flowers or if they would find the shortest route" Did they use hundreds of computer controlled artificial flowers? And did the bees visit every one? And if the problem is so hard to solve using a computer, how did the researchers actually know that the bees found an optimal solution? Ben Zaiboc From pharos at gmail.com Wed Oct 27 12:06:09 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:06:09 +0100 Subject: [ExI] this might sting your interest In-Reply-To: <607309.50993.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <607309.50993.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:25 PM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > > I'd be cautious about this. ?The article says ""In > nature, bees have to link hundreds of flowers .." > > and > > "The team used computer controlled artificial flowers > to test whether bees would follow a route defined by > the order in which they discovered the flowers or if > they would find the shortest route" > > Did they use hundreds of computer controlled > artificial flowers? ?And did the bees visit every one? > And if the problem is so hard to solve using a > computer, how did the researchers actually know that > the bees found an optimal solution? > > They used four artificial flowers. Started with one then added the others and analysed the paths. At least one comment suggested the bees might have been following the stronger scents rather than computing paths. More research required. Where's my milion grant? BillK From kanzure at gmail.com Wed Oct 27 13:18:43 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 08:18:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] holy grail, batman! computer sim of a cell In-Reply-To: <8222144E6FF74A059EAE55E693685AD0@spike> References: <8222144E6FF74A059EAE55E693685AD0@spike> Message-ID: 2010/10/27 spike : > And here's his street cred: Not useful. Try this: http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=author%3Acovert+cell+simulation - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 From bbenzai at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 13:16:37 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:16:37 +0100 (BST) Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <890345.38744.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >you would expect to end up as either >the copy or the original with equal probability. and: >there is a 1/million probability that you would be the >copy that differentiates. Again, what is this 'you' of which you speak? This is the heart of the problem. To say that 'you' would end up as one or other of the instances is nonsense, as 'you' have been duplicated. There are now two 'you's. The Amoeba example is a good one. After reproducing, which one of the daughter cells is the 'true' amoeba? It's a nonsense question, isn't it? The only possible answer is "not one, both!". 'I' am what my brain /does/. Wherever that 'doing' happens, there am 'I'. All these objections seem to hinge on a totally unsuported assumption: There can only be one 'I'. There isn't any scientific principle which indicates that this is true, and logic indicates that it's false. Here's a thought experiment: Imagine a machine which could create two atoms where there was one, and move each atom exactly 1 metre away from the original position, in opposite directions, very quickly. This process is applied to your entire body, creating two exact copies, 2 metres apart. So which one is 'you'? Ben Zaiboc From stathisp at gmail.com Wed Oct 27 13:58:18 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 00:58:18 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <890345.38744.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <890345.38744.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:16 AM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > Here's a thought experiment: ?Imagine a machine which > could create two atoms where there was one, and move > each atom exactly 1 metre away from the original > position, in opposite directions, very quickly. This > process is applied to your entire body, creating two > exact copies, 2 metres apart. > > So which one is 'you'? Both have equal claim to being "you", but each copy feels that it is the real "you". This translates to a 1/2 probability of finding yourself the copy on the left or the copy on the right. This is a *subjective* probability, an illusion if you prefer. It is what is supposed to happen in ordinary life under a multiverse model of reality: when you toss a coin one version of you sees heads and another version sees tails, but you have the illusion that you "become" one or other version with a 1/2 probability of seeing heads or tails. -- Stathis Papaioannou From bbenzai at yahoo.com Wed Oct 27 13:55:34 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 14:55:34 +0100 (BST) Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <948665.31594.qm@web114412.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Alan Grimes declared: >> At no point would there be any more >> communication between them than there is between any >> other two people, and certainly no shared >> consciousness. > Oh, but there must be! Uploading would be entirely > without utilitarian > benefit without such a link! =P So what is the nature of this supposed link? What is it's mechanism, how can it be interrupted, etc.? When I say "no shared consciousness" I don't mean that at first, their consciousness wouldn't be identical. I mean there is no sharing of consciousness, in a 'hive-mind' sort of way. >> This dualistic view makes no sense to me. > I'm a militant monist! > How dare you accuse me of dualistic thinking. > I'm less of a dualist than you are. > > You believe in a new kind of dualism called > pattern-brain duality. I suppose that's similar to 'tick-clock duality', or 'music-CD duality'? The fact that systems exhibit behaviour is not 'dualism', and calling it that is unnecessary and confusing. If you're saying that I believe that one system exhibiting one kind of behaviour is equivalent to another system exhibiting exactly the same behaviour, you're right, and so do you. Unless you think that only one wristwatch in the whole world can tell the correct time. Where we differ is that I see no reason why the principles that apply to every other complex system in existence shouldn't also apply to brains. Why should brains, and brains alone, be exempt? >> The central point is this: >> There is no 'you', except for what your brain does. > Correct, my brain. No, not your brain. What it does. If your brain did nothing, there would be no you. It's easy to demonstrate, because so many things that interfere with the functioning of the brain (but that don't change it's structure) cause changes in consciousness. If you were your brain, you'd be dead within a few days, weeks or months, depending on what level of physical structure the 'you-ness' resides in. On the other hand, if you give your watch to a shop to have the battery changed, I bet you don't say "This isn't my watch!" when you get it back with a new battery. You don't care which battery is in there, you only care that the watch works the same as before. 'You' are not your brain, 'you' are what it does. It's the functioning that's important, not the material or the mechanism. This is evident by the fact that the molecules it's composed of are being swapped for new ones all the time, and that some signals are conveyed by action potentials kicked off at synapses, or at tight junctions, and some by diffusing chemicals. These mechanisms and materials are only there to make the process work. It's the process that is you. > So lets argue about who's the stinking soft-headed, > mystical-thinking, > fact-ignoring, limp-wristed, lotus-eating dualist > because he sure as > hell ain't me! LOL. Perhaps you /should/ take your medication before posting! Ben Zaiboc From agrimes at speakeasy.net Wed Oct 27 14:13:53 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:13:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <890345.38744.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <890345.38744.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CC833A1.2080104@speakeasy.net> > Here's a thought experiment: Imagine a machine which > could create two atoms where there was one, and move > each atom exactly 1 metre away from the original > position, in opposite directions, very quickly. This > process is applied to your entire body, creating two > exact copies, 2 metres apart. > > So which one is 'you'? 1. that procedure is implausible. 2. That procedure yields no benefit because neither copy is any better than the original. 3. in all plausible "uploading" procedures, you remain as the original and either die or go back to working on Real Transhumanism. =/ -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed Oct 27 14:40:12 2010 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:40:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Three Indians for spike! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hey spike, I thought you'd enjoy seeing this: http://www.shorpy.com/node/9225 :) Regards, MB From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Oct 27 15:49:34 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:49:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <890345.38744.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <658BCC1D-256E-4C42-A187-7BDE3CD20E26@bellsouth.net> On Oct 27, 2010, at 9:58 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > > Both have equal claim to being "you", but each copy feels that it is the real "you". Exactly correct. > This translates to a 1/2 probability of finding > yourself the copy on the left or the copy on the right. And that contradicts what you just said before. If the one on the right is you and the one on the left is you then simple logic demands that you will find yourself, that is to say you will be, on the left with 100% probability and on the right with 100% probability. > This is a *subjective* probability Objectivity is of trivial importance, subjectivity is the most important thing in the universe; or at least it is in my subjective opinion. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 27 16:28:15 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:28:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] this might sting your interest In-Reply-To: <607309.50993.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <607309.50993.qm@web114419.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc > Subject: Re: [ExI] this might sting your interest > > > > > ... > > Did they use hundreds of computer controlled artificial > flowers? And did the bees visit every one? > And if the problem is so hard to solve using a computer, how > did the researchers actually know that the bees found an > optimal solution? > > Ben Zaiboc Ben I had some of the same questions. The article doesn't say all that much, but I had some ideas on how to reproduce the results. I would need to put an RFID on several bees, then have readers on each flower (which is expensive and beyond my personal budget). Then I would be able to determine which path the bee took. I might be able to do the same thing with microphones on each flower, if I can figure out a way to keep other bees away, such as in a warehouse or gymnasium for instance. Microphones are cheap. If you have a field with flowers randomly scattered about, try to determine by eye which is the shortest path which hits every flower. Then compare the path length the bee chose. Then compare the path length the computer chose. You can write a sim in microsloth excel that finds a pretty good path, even if it isn't the very best one. I wrote one a long time ago. If you want I can see if I can find that and send you the code. spike From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Oct 27 16:31:39 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:31:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] "Is the Universe a Big Hologram? This Device Could Find Out" In-Reply-To: <4CC7C668.5000105@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC7C668.5000105@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 2:27 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > According to Einstein?s view on the universe, space-time should be smooth > and continuous. However, this view may need to be modified as space-time may > be composed of quantum 'points? if Hogan?s theory is correct. At its finest > scale, we should be able to probe down the 'Planck length? which measures > 10-35 meters. But the GEO600 experiment detected noise at scales of less > than 10-15 meters. I'm not sure the author of the article understands that Planck length isn't a range of ten to thirty five _meters_ After that is explained, then the 1.6E-35 is still much much smaller than x.yE-15 (detecting anything at x.yE-15 is still pretty damned impressive though) I'd ask how long is a Holometer, but I guess they aren't finished building it yet :) From rpwl at lightlink.com Wed Oct 27 16:44:26 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:44:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Who is the 'real' you? [WAS Re: Let's play What If.] In-Reply-To: <890345.38744.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <890345.38744.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CC856EA.7070508@lightlink.com> Ben Zaiboc wrote: > Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> you would expect to end up as either >> the copy or the original with equal probability. > > and: > >> there is a 1/million probability that you would be > the >> copy that differentiates. > > > Again, what is this 'you' of which you speak? This is > the heart of the problem. To say that 'you' would end > up as one or other of the instances is nonsense, as > 'you' have been duplicated. There are now two 'you's. > The Amoeba example is a good one. After reproducing, > which one of the daughter cells is the 'true' amoeba? > It's a nonsense question, isn't it? The only possible > answer is "not one, both!". > > 'I' am what my brain /does/. Wherever that 'doing' > happens, there am 'I'. > > All these objections seem to hinge on a totally > unsuported assumption: There can only be one 'I'. > There isn't any scientific principle which indicates > that this is true, and logic indicates that it's > false. > > Here's a thought experiment: Imagine a machine which > could create two atoms where there was one, and move > each atom exactly 1 metre away from the original > position, in opposite directions, very quickly. This > process is applied to your entire body, creating two > exact copies, 2 metres apart. > > So which one is 'you'? > > Ben Zaiboc I completely agree with your analysis, Ben, but it might help to focus on the reason why people tend to get all tangled up on this point. If we start thinking that all one million duplicates are independent entities, then this has a blowback effect on the original, simple case where one person is completely duplicated AND the 'original' is destroyed at the same instant that the new one is created. The blowback is this: some of us want to say that this is equivalent to going to sleep and then waking up in a new body. But if the same situation is looked at from the point of view of the million duplicates (all of which are new creatures, so NONE of them are a continuation of the 'real you'), then the implication is that this is like death plus the creation of a new individual with the same memories. So that gives two contradictory interpretations. I believe the solution is relatively simple, though strange. The concept of a "you" is just not coherent in these circumstances, and in fact the problem actually comes down to an IRRESOLVABLE duality between the two concepts of "death plus replication" versus "going to sleep and waking up". These two are the same concept. There is no difference between the two of them, and no conceivably way to test for a difference between them. The problem has always been that we evolved the concept of a self in a world in which duplication does not happen. The concept is not built to stand the strain of that extended usage. Richard Loosemore From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 27 16:53:18 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 11:53:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> On 10/27/2010 5:10 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > As I understand your position this is > impossible: you think you will end up as the original with probability > 1 and as a copy with probability 0. Of course--in the situation you first proposed. Say I walk into a scanning station, lie down, get scanned, stand up and the team wave me off after a nice cup of tea. Then they settle down to cleaning up any glitches in the scan and begin running off either one or a million copies who coalesce in the copy tank/s. Surely you're not claiming that everyone gets really really confused at that point, including me, and forgets who the original was? > So what do you think would happen > if the MWI is correct and there is no original? I have no idea. But that isn't the case you proposed, where someone (a original) is asked which of two copying procedures to authorize, each procedure entailing a horrendous consequence for one copy. Damien Broderick From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Oct 27 16:55:32 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:55:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] the truman show ai, was this might sting your interest In-Reply-To: References: <4CC7633E.2070002@satx.rr.com> <29C69017F9FE457F998604DF3269E97B@spike> Message-ID: On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 12:40 AM, spike wrote: > Of course the AI reads the internet, so they or it realizes evidence of its > existence has been detected. ?So the signal quickly goes out to stop telling > the bees how to work the travelling saleman problem. ?Result, the > researchers are never able to reproduce the observation that originally > inspired the article, nor is anyone else, so the whole thing is soon > forgotten. I hesitate to mention this... but that theory could be applied to the psi thread(s) too. I'd like to see both linked to the holographic universe principle as a form of information either inside or outside the experiment having impact on its results. The reason I asked about the bees' communication is that the hive reminds me of a massively parallel computing architecture. While researching genetic algorithms I saw a methodology for using GA on MP architecture to solve TSP (yes, that's a lot of letters in place of words) If a bee is able to communicate energy consumed vs pollen retrieved as measure of fitness, then it's "route" over some interval can be measured on each return to the hive. If higher fitness routes replace lower routes the optimal solution is approached over time. I wonder how "prospecting" is managed in that context. The reason I mentioned ants is their apparent optimization strategy using pheromones. The original article discussed network traversal strategy in nature and the applicability to computer networks. It would be great to discover a digital equivalent of the pheromone trail for packets of data to follow. One of the more interesting strategies I read about involved cloud-based machines simply migrating through the cloud to have proximity on the same underlying hardware to minimize the physical distance without affecting the logical topology of the network. Point-to-point optimization is then a matter of pruning all the now-redundant links in the logical network. ... these are the kinds of things on which I should be spending my 9-5 hours. *sigh* From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 27 17:02:44 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:02:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CC85B34.4090904@satx.rr.com> On 10/27/2010 5:15 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > torturing one of the copies would cause a differentiation, and > there is a 1/million probability that you would be the copy that > differentiates. On the other hand if there were only 2 copies there > would be a 1/2 probability that you would be the one that experiences > torture and differentiates. So it is better to go for the million > copies. The error here is that people are (mis)using the word "copy" when they mean "instance" or "instantiation." The original of me (i.e. me here and now) is an instance of me; any effectively perfect copies of me will also be (at the moment of their creation) instances of me-as-I-was-when-scanned. Bearing this crucial distinction in mind, and changing the rules so the torture can also be a risk for all the instances (since that seems important to you), the probabilities are actually 1/1,000,001 and 1/3 (since you stipulated a million copies versus two copies). Damien Broderick From sjatkins at mac.com Wed Oct 27 17:07:12 2010 From: sjatkins at mac.com (Samantha Atkins) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:07:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] this might sting your interest In-Reply-To: <29C69017F9FE457F998604DF3269E97B@spike> References: <4CC7633E.2070002@satx.rr.com> <29C69017F9FE457F998604DF3269E97B@spike> Message-ID: <4CC85C40.3030503@mac.com> On 10/26/2010 04:46 PM, spike wrote: > > >> ...On Behalf Of Damien Broderick >> Subject: [ExI] this might sting your interest >> >> > >> Bumblebees can find the solution to a complex mathematical >> problem which keeps computers busy for days. >> >> Scientists at Queen Mary, University of London and Royal >> Holloway, University of London have discovered that bees >> learn to fly the shortest possible route between flowers even >> if they discover the flowers in a different order. Bees are >> effectively solving the 'Travelling Salesman Problem', and >> these are the first animals found to do this... >> relatively simple nervous systems such as those of insects >> make this mystery more tractable." > > I have been pondering this in the past couple days. I have a google alert > on bees, so it sent me the link. I don't know what the heck to make of it. > Bees do some amazing things with their little bit of brain. Apparently > there exists some algorithm for solving the travelling saleman problem that > we haven't discovered yet, but evolution has. To state the absolutely > obvious: is this wicked cool or what! > Perhaps I am missing something but this isn't too surprising to me. Brains are very very parallel. So all possible computation for some number of flowers (or city) orders could be computed in a fairly straight forward manner for N flowers where N is not too big. Picture the problem as a neural net where each neuron is a flower and the weight between any two is proportional to the distance. Another set has a inverse weighing total flight path length over an ordered association of the former. Hmm. Algorithm needs work but I think I could figure it out in not too much time if I had this kind of machinery to play with. And it is not that brains optimised to minimise energy consumption for maximal food nectar optimisation would hit on a workable algorithm. - s From sparge at gmail.com Wed Oct 27 17:38:12 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:38:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <364035E2-F6CA-4F92-B739-563093FF0921@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/27 John Clark > On Oct 26, 2010, at 1:22 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > > But we're talking about an original and an upload > > > And neither would know which is which unless you told them, and even then > they probably wouldn't believe you; both would probably insist they were the > original regardless of the evidence, but I wouldn't because I don't care if > I'm the original or the copy. > That assumes a lot of things, primarily that the upload universe is indistinguishable from the real universe. Another is that no attempt is made, as part of the uploading process, to make the upload aware that it is, in fact, an upload. I consider that immorally deceptive. I'd never agree to allow a non-destructive upload of myself without it being made clear to the upload immediately upon activation that that's what it is. > so there would be two separate beings as soon as the upload is activated > > There would be only one conscious experience provided the two were > identical. > How's that? You've got two independent instantiations running on completely different substrates and you don't think there are two different consciousnesses? Even if there were two uploads running in identical, synchronized virtual realities, there'd still be two different-but-identical consciousnesses. > The upload could be aware that it's a virtual copy and consider itself a > fork of the original > > Then one would be aware of something that the other is not so the two would > no longer be identical. > Of course. > and unable to claim that it *is* the original. > > The original what? > The consciousness running on the original, non-virtual substrate. > It can't be the original atoms since neither entity owns them they just > rent them, and it can't be original information since both embody the same > information; so what exactly is so original about the original? > Where it lives is different. > And I can point to something that is not a thought experiment but actually > happens, when a one cell ameba reproduces it splits in have and then the two > half's grow back to their previous size, it is not meaningful to ask which > is the original and which is the copy. > Great, but that's not the thought experiment that started this thread. > Also, the law may well not grant both entities the same rights. > > I was talking about logic and you're talking about the law, the two have > absolutely nothing to do with each other. > Good one, John. But legal issues are important nonetheless. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Oct 27 17:33:32 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 10:33:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Three Indians for spike! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Greetings Extropians! At one time we had a guideline to avoid posting photos on ExI, because it was the mid 90s memory was expensive you know, and many of us had dial-up (I did until 1999, such a primitive savage was I.) But that was then and now is now. Today, memory is cheap and bandwidth is mind blowing. See how far we have come in just the past 15 years? What will it be 15 years hence? Ahh, life is good. Jim and other sight impaired ExI-ers, does an embedded photo mess up your text to voice? If there is still a good reason why we should not post photos, do offer it, so I can desist forthwith. > ...On Behalf Of MB ... > Subject: [ExI] Three Indians for spike! > > > Hey spike, I thought you'd enjoy seeing this: > > http://www.shorpy.com/node/9225 > > :) > > Regards, > MB Thanks MB! The photo is dated 1926, but all three of the bikes in your site are pre world war 1. I can tell by the shape of the fuel tank. After production for civilian use resumed in 1918, Hendee went with a more rounded design than the torpedo tank. The closest bike in the website photo is I think a 1915 model. Actually I think all three of these bikes are 1915s, although the guy in back might be a 1916 because of the headlight, or it could have been added afterwards. Reasoning: look closely at throttle linkage in the photo on your site and compare to the photo below that I took at a local show. Hendee didn't use throttle cables in those days, but rather an articulated shaft attached to a left hand throttle. The Indian liter twins had a spark advancer on the right hand twist grip and a shaft actuated throttle on the left hand grip! {8^D Here's another bit of fun trivia for you who fail to ponder every day how good we have it. The Europeans passed a law that said every motorcycle needed two brakes. Indian wanted to export bikes to Europe, but they needed to meet that standard. Front brakes were a technologically difficult problem in the days before cable actuation was common, but you already had one interface with the back wheel, thru the chain. Some yank (who worked for Harley Davidson) realized the European law didn't actually specify that it needed to be one brake on each wheel, rather only that there be two of them. So they came up with a linkage that would tighten a leather belt around the rear hub, to make a (kinda sorta) second brake. Notice that none of these three bikes have a front brake, those would be for sissies. The European law didn't actually specify that the brake had to actually work either, just that the bike have two of them. Remember these were the days before product liability and safety laws. Most Indian buyers immediately removed that utterly worthless second brake and threw it away, making that the rarest and most expensive piece for the Indian restoration crowd. If you find a prewar Indian (or Harley) twin in of great grandpa's barn with that original factory rear brake linkage still in place, the bike is worth a fortune. {8^D It is amazing any of our ancestors survived to breed. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Outlook.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 48782 bytes Desc: not available URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Wed Oct 27 17:37:23 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:37:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> On Oct 27, 2010, at 12:53 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 10/27/2010 5:10 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> As I understand your position this is impossible: you think you will end up as the original with probability 1 and as a copy with probability 0. > > Of course--in the situation you first proposed. Say I walk into a scanning station, lie down, get scanned, stand up and the team wave me off after a nice cup of tea. AFTER you walk out of the scanning station then of course you have every right to identify with the man who walked out of the scanning station, and no other. Then is the time to feel sorry for that other fellow and be glad it wasn't you; but you haven't done that yet, and there is a 100% chance you will never have that happy subjective experience but instead will walk into the scanning station and find yourself on the rack being prodded with red hot irons. But you're not entirely wrong as you also have a 100% chance of getting off scot free. Until the duplication process is complete you do have justification for identifying with your future self walking out of the scanning station whistling a happy tune, but you have equal justification for identifying with your future self screaming in the torture chamber. And the fellow in the chamber would not feel like he was an abstract offshoot of you, he would feel that you, the lucky bastard who gets to live a cushy pain free life, is an abstract offshoot of him. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 27 17:54:14 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 12:54:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CC85B34.4090904@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC85B34.4090904@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CC86746.4090207@satx.rr.com> On 10/27/2010 12:02 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Bearing this crucial distinction in mind, and changing the rules so the > torture can also be a risk for all the instances (since that seems > important to you), the probabilities are actually 1/1,000,001 and 1/3 > (since you stipulated a million copies versus two copies). Damn it, I got myself tangled there because I was trying to make Stathis's proposition make sense. What he initially proposed was: To be *duplicated* does mean "original instance plus one duplicate/copy" and this is clearly what's meant, since "once with one of the copies being tortured" has p=1 when there's only one copy, and this can't be what's meant. So this just demonstrates how tangled the use of ordinary language gets with such thought experiments. In any event, to "duplicate" means to create an additional instance of the original. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Wed Oct 27 18:05:23 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 13:05:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> On 10/27/2010 12:37 PM, John Clark wrote: > there is a 100% chance you will never have that happy subjective > experience but instead will walk into the scanning station and find > yourself on the rack being prodded with red hot irons. You've changed the implied rules again. You *don't* find yourself on the rack, you find yourself being helped out of the compilation vat or off the receiving platform or whatever, and taken into the next room or the next county to be tortured. You recall settling down to be scanned, and curse the day your original was cruelly stupid enough to agree to such a barbaric deal, but you know for certain that you are not he because he was in the scanning room. Yes, you can futz around with this to your heart's content, waking both the original and the copy in identical rooms and drugging them so they can't recall the last hour or so, but then your casuistry becomes obvious. Damien Broderick From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Oct 28 00:15:05 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:15:05 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Who is the 'real' you? [WAS Re: Let's play What If.] In-Reply-To: <4CC856EA.7070508@lightlink.com> References: <890345.38744.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC856EA.7070508@lightlink.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:44 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote: > If we start thinking that all one million duplicates are independent > entities, then this has a blowback effect on the original, simple case where > one person is completely duplicated AND the 'original' is destroyed at the > same instant that the new one is created. > > The blowback is this: ?some of us want to say that this is equivalent to > going to sleep and then waking up in a new body. ?But if the same situation > is looked at from the point of view of the million duplicates (all of which > are new creatures, so NONE of them are a continuation of the 'real you'), > then the implication is that this is like death plus the creation of a new > individual with the same memories. > > So that gives two contradictory interpretations. > > I believe the solution is relatively simple, though strange. ?The concept of > a "you" is just not coherent in these circumstances, and in fact the problem > actually comes down to an IRRESOLVABLE duality between the two concepts of > "death plus replication" versus "going to sleep and waking up". ?These two > are the same concept. ?There is no difference between the two of them, and > no conceivably way to test for a difference between them. > > The problem has always been that we evolved the concept of a self in a world > in which duplication does not happen. ?The concept is not built to stand the > strain of that extended usage. We evolved in a world where duplication is going on continuously but the original is destroyed. That is what happens as part of normal metabolic processes. No-one gets stressed over the fact that next year, all the atoms in their body will have dispersed throughout the biosphere as thoroughly as if they had been cremated, and living in their home will be a copy with their memories. People *do* get stressed if that copy with their memories is not expected to be around in a year, since that would mean they would be dead. -- Stathis Papaioannou From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Oct 28 00:46:15 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:46:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Who is the 'real' you? [WAS Re: Let's play What If.] In-Reply-To: References: <890345.38744.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC856EA.7070508@lightlink.com> Message-ID: snip It's a shame the original mailing list archives are not available since as near as I can tell there has not been a new idea on any of the uploading subjects written here in the last few years. Keith From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Oct 28 00:50:43 2010 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 17:50:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] StratoSolar progress Message-ID: I have a spread sheet (if anyone wants to look at it) that goes into the engineering of a buoyant, aerodynamic shroud. Not being a real guru of spread sheets, it could use some help. Keith From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Oct 28 00:57:53 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:57:53 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 3:53 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 10/27/2010 5:10 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > >> As I understand your position this is >> impossible: you think you will end up as the original with probability >> 1 and as a copy with probability 0. > > Of course--in the situation you first proposed. Say I walk into a scanning > station, lie down, get scanned, stand up and the team wave me off after a > nice cup of tea. Then they settle down to cleaning up any glitches in the > scan and begin running off either one or a million copies who coalesce in > the copy tank/s. Surely you're not claiming that everyone gets really really > confused at that point, including me, and forgets who the original was? If the information is kept from you, you have no way of knowing whether you are a copy or the original after the procedure. It might have been done to you while you slept last night. It is what happens naturally anyway as the result of normal metabolic processes. You'll be gone in a year, replaced by a copy that looks like you and has your memories. But even though you are now a copy, you have the illusion that you are a unique individual persisting through time. Survival consists in perpetuating this illusion. >> So what do you think would happen >> if the MWI is correct and there is no original? > > I have no idea. But that isn't the case you proposed, where someone (a > original) is asked which of two copying procedures to authorize, each > procedure entailing a horrendous consequence for one copy. It is equivalent to the case I proposed because none of the copies or original knows which is which, and even after they are told they all feel they are the original. It is this fact that leads to the subjective probabilities. -- Stathis Papaioannou From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Oct 28 01:19:40 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 20:19:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CC8CFAC.2000403@satx.rr.com> On 10/27/2010 7:57 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> Of course--in the situation you first proposed. Say I walk into a scanning >> > station, lie down, get scanned, stand up and the team wave me off after a >> > nice cup of tea. Then they settle down to cleaning up any glitches in the >> > scan and begin running off either one or a million copies who coalesce in >> > the copy tank/s. Surely you're not claiming that everyone gets really really >> > confused at that point, including me, and forgets who the original was? > If the information is kept from you, you have no way of knowing > whether you are a copy or the original after the procedure. It might > have been done to you while you slept last night. If I know *in advance* that the information is going to be kept from me, I'm not foolish enough to authorize the procedure. If it is going to be done anyway by an evil scientist, whatever I say about it, I'm screwed. My recommendation: stay well clear of mad or bad scientists, despots, tyrants, and other brutes. Damien Broderick From spike66 at att.net Thu Oct 28 01:00:03 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 18:00:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Who is the 'real' you? [WAS Re: Let's play What If.] In-Reply-To: References: <890345.38744.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><4CC856EA.7070508@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <31211D53AA4045098162DAF879CD89C0@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Keith Henson > Subject: Re: [ExI] Who is the 'real' you? [WAS Re: Let's play > What If.] > > snip > > It's a shame the original mailing list archives are not > available since as near as I can tell there has not been a > new idea on any of the uploading subjects written here in the > last few years. > > Keith Isn't outloading new? Or stealth inloading into insects? A limited invisible singularity? If that stuff is in the archives, it might have been more than 14 years ago. I started following ExI in about 1996 but do not recall seeing it. spike From agrimes at speakeasy.net Thu Oct 28 01:15:43 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:15:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Here's an idea: Let's torture sane people! =P Message-ID: <4CC8CEBF.3010701@speakeasy.net> I'm feeling about ten different emotions about this subject simultaneously. My post the other day had many intents, despite being written as a bedtime flash of inspiration. First, as I have already shown, it effectively tricked the uploaders into arguing against their own fetish by forcing them to argue that no link of any kind exists between the original an the copy. Second, it was also an attempt to inject a meme that it might be possible to build a hybrid mind architecture with a very non-zero chance of success and with benefits far beyond what anyone has ever promised on behalf of uploading. (Uploaders, as you see, spend all their time defending their identity argument at the expense of any possibility of radical cognitive enhancement!) And then a miracle happened. Instead of launching into a thread about radical intelligence augmentation through neural interfacing, someone introjected "torture" into the argument. -- as if it has any relevance to anything outside of Guantanimo Bay (mercy be upon those poor souls). =\ And then, desperate to avoid facing the real issue raised, everyone jumps on the torture bandwagon. Are there any real transhumanists on this list even slightly interested in becoming a million times smarter than they are right now? Is it really true that you don't wish for anything other than to have a computer simulate a perfect (equally stupid, in the grand scheme) copy of yourself? Sheesh! Maybe we should declare this an electric car list, here's my newest dream machine: Factory 5 GTM chassis with a Getrag 1eDT330 power plant. ;) SA-SA-SAWEEEEEEET!!! Tragically, it appears that the Getrag power plant isn't available to mere mortals. =(((( BTW, you can soon get a series hybrid with that power plant, it's made by this company called http://fiskerautomotive.com/ . Not excessively expensive either. =) Just don't waste my time on the mechanics of gas turbines. =| -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From brent.allsop at canonizer.com Thu Oct 28 01:59:29 2010 From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 19:59:29 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Who is the 'real' you? [WAS Re: Let's play What If.] In-Reply-To: References: <890345.38744.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC856EA.7070508@lightlink.com> Message-ID: Keith, Yes, this is a shame. I've got most of them saved in my personal archive. But I bet nobody is going to ask for them all and try to search through all the gazillions of files for any reason. And yes, there are the occasional new ideas as Spike pointed out. You have the same problem with the now more than 20K publications now in Chalmers' bibliography on this topic. How many people have achieved even a small survey of all that? What you need is each of the good ideas / theories put forth by many that are similar, grouped together, the best version concisely stated, in the best language agreed on by most experts, continuously developed by their proponents, and a quantitative measure of who and how many people are in each camp. So you can watch the state of things finally start to progress, as science and good arguments start to falsify the bad ones, instead of being stuck in the same old, yes it is, no it isn't repetitive mud forever. You know, kind of like some of us are finally starting to do here: http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/48 and http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/88/6 I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks all this repetitive stuff, going on for well more than 10 years now, just on this list, is so tiring. Richard Loosemore said: <<<< I believe the solution is relatively simple, though strange. The concept of a "you" is just not coherent in these circumstances, and in fact the problem actually comes down to an IRRESOLVABLE duality between the two concepts of "death plus replication" versus "going to sleep and waking up". These two are the same concept. There is no difference between the two of them, and no conceivably way to test for a difference between them. >>>> "IRRESOLVABLE"? "no conceivable way to test for a difference"? Continuity, not going to sleep and then not waking up, forgetting and loosing access to what things were like when I was young... all of this is all critically important. It's absolutely terrible that I have to consciously cease to exist when I go to sleep, and that I don't know what my partner experiences when I hug her.... all of it is important to identity - the more the better. The experts in the "Representational Qualia Theory"camp continually extending it's lead in the amount of scientific consensus (i.e. Lehar, Chalmers, Hameroff, Gregg, Smythies.... ) it has compared to all other theories, above are predicting science is about to resolve this via 'effing' of the ineffable. In other words, just like our right and left hemesphere are connected together into one world of conscoius awarness, we'll be connecting the brains of our many copies, and in a shared way know precisely what they are like, how they are same, and how different they all are. And phenomenal knowledge of ourselves (what we think of as our spirits) will easily wander between them all, and control them all, and share them all at the same time. All as has been described in a fictionalized account of what is being predicted by this theory in chapters 5 and 6 of this story here: http://home.comcast.net/~brent.allsop/1229.htm#_Toc22030742 Once (or if you must IF) we start effing the ineffable, (Obviously, this will be the greatest scientific achievement of all time if it happens as predicted by this growing consensus theory, and such effing will falsify all other theories, causing everyone to finally jump to THE ONE camp) all these issues about identity will completely vanish, and will no longer be troubling for most anyone - once they start effing. What a time to be alive, to witness, and possibly be a part of (who will be the first in THE ONE camp?) this greatest of all scientific discoveries when everyone finally jumps to THE ONE theory of consciousness finally proven by science. Evidently, we are already well on our way of achieving this consensus - at least amongst the experts . Brent Allsop On Wed, Oct 27, 2010 at 6:46 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > snip > > It's a shame the original mailing list archives are not available > since as near as I can tell there has not been a new idea on any of > the uploading subjects written here in the last few years. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Thu Oct 28 02:57:08 2010 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Wed, 27 Oct 2010 21:57:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Who is the 'real' you? [WAS Re: Let's play What If.] In-Reply-To: References: <890345.38744.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CC856EA.7070508@lightlink.com> Message-ID: 2010/10/27 Brent Allsop : > Yes, this is a shame.? I've got most of them saved in my personal archive. > But I bet nobody is going to ask for them all and try to search through all > the gazillions of files for any reason.? And yes, there are the occasional > new ideas as Spike pointed out.? You have the same problem with the now more > than 20K publications now in Chalmers' bibliography on this topic.? How many > people have achieved even a small survey of all that? Actually, I have a large portion of the original extropy archives, and I am accepting donations from anyone who has the years 1991-onwards. Max and I are making arrangements for publishing old Extropy content online somewhere in the near future. Pony it up :-). - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Thu Oct 28 07:40:02 2010 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 00:40:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Here's an idea: Let's torture sane people! =P In-Reply-To: <4CC8CEBF.3010701@speakeasy.net> References: <4CC8CEBF.3010701@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: Alan Grimes wrote: Are there any real transhumanists on this list even slightly interested in becoming a million times smarter than they are right now? >>> Yes, of course there are, but having the desire for such improvement and currently being able to actually do it, are two very different things! lol I'm also very interested in becoming a million times *richer* than I am right now! ; ) John On 10/27/10, Alan Grimes wrote: > I'm feeling about ten different emotions about this subject simultaneously. > > My post the other day had many intents, despite being written as a > bedtime flash of inspiration. > > First, as I have already shown, it effectively tricked the uploaders > into arguing against their own fetish by forcing them to argue that no > link of any kind exists between the original an the copy. > > Second, it was also an attempt to inject a meme that it might be > possible to build a hybrid mind architecture with a very non-zero chance > of success and with benefits far beyond what anyone has ever promised on > behalf of uploading. (Uploaders, as you see, spend all their time > defending their identity argument at the expense of any possibility of > radical cognitive enhancement!) > > And then a miracle happened. Instead of launching into a thread about > radical intelligence augmentation through neural interfacing, someone > introjected "torture" into the argument. -- as if it has any relevance > to anything outside of Guantanimo Bay (mercy be upon those poor souls). =\ > > And then, desperate to avoid facing the real issue raised, everyone > jumps on the torture bandwagon. > > Are there any real transhumanists on this list even slightly interested > in becoming a million times smarter than they are right now? Is it > really true that you don't wish for anything other than to have a > computer simulate a perfect (equally stupid, in the grand scheme) copy > of yourself? Sheesh! > > Maybe we should declare this an electric car list, here's my newest > dream machine: > > Factory 5 GTM chassis with a Getrag 1eDT330 power plant. ;) > SA-SA-SAWEEEEEEET!!! > > Tragically, it appears that the Getrag power plant isn't available to > mere mortals. =(((( > > BTW, you can soon get a series hybrid with that power plant, it's made > by this company called http://fiskerautomotive.com/ . Not excessively > expensive either. =) > > Just don't waste my time on the mechanics of gas turbines. =| > > > -- > DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. > DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. > Powers are not rights. > > From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Oct 28 08:17:11 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 19:17:11 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CC8CFAC.2000403@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <4CC8CFAC.2000403@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 12:19 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > If I know *in advance* that the information is going to be kept from me, I'm > not foolish enough to authorize the procedure. If it is going to be done > anyway by an evil scientist, whatever I say about it, I'm screwed. My > recommendation: stay well clear of mad or bad scientists, despots, tyrants, > and other brutes. The point is not that the information is kept from you, it is that it doesn't make any difference when it is revealed. You are a copy of the Damien of a year ago, now long disintegrated. Perhaps you hadn't considered this fact before. Now that you have considered it, does it change anything? -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Oct 28 08:28:28 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 19:28:28 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Here's an idea: Let's torture sane people! =P In-Reply-To: <4CC8CEBF.3010701@speakeasy.net> References: <4CC8CEBF.3010701@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/28 Alan Grimes : > I'm feeling about ten different emotions about this subject simultaneously. > > My post the other day had many intents, despite being written as a > bedtime flash of inspiration. > > First, as I have already shown, it effectively tricked the uploaders > into arguing against their own fetish by forcing them to argue that no > link of any kind exists between the original an the copy. Other than a link of information, the same link as that between the versions of Alan Grimes at different time points in his life. > And then a miracle happened. Instead of launching into a thread about > radical intelligence augmentation through neural interfacing, someone > introjected "torture" into the argument. -- as if it has any relevance > to anything outside of Guantanimo Bay (mercy be upon those poor souls). =\ Whether you feel apprehensive about a version of yourself being tortured is an indication of whether you consider that that version is "you". If I told you you were going to be tortured next week but don't worry, because you have a rapid metabolism your brain will be made up of completely different matter by then, will you stop worrying? -- Stathis Papaioannou From algaenymph at gmail.com Thu Oct 28 08:44:10 2010 From: algaenymph at gmail.com (AlgaeNymph) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 01:44:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Countering Sanctimonious Luddism Message-ID: <4CC937DA.1030503@gmail.com> In concise cartoon form is an argument I've had the misfortune to have dealt with: http://picturesforsadchildren.com/index.php?comicID=102 This is also something we're going to have to deal with, so it's best if we figure out a way how. No, I don't think just ignoring it will work since people who seem Righteous & Angry get listened to by people, and by politics when enough people are listening. I'm not looking for solutions to winning over sanctimonious Luddites but rather the mainstream culture. From florent.berthet at gmail.com Thu Oct 28 11:19:00 2010 From: florent.berthet at gmail.com (Florent Berthet) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:19:00 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Here's an idea: Let's torture sane people! =P In-Reply-To: References: <4CC8CEBF.3010701@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/28 Stathis Papaioannou > > If I told you you were going to be tortured next week but don't > worry, because you have a rapid metabolism your brain will be made up > of completely different matter by then, will you stop worrying? > Good analogy, but that could be interpreted in both ways. I used to think destructive uploading was a major problem, but after some thoughts, as counter-intuitive as it seems, I realized the continuity in the process wasn't relevant. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Oct 28 11:59:35 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:59:35 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Here's an idea: Let's torture sane people! =P In-Reply-To: References: <4CC8CEBF.3010701@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/28 Florent Berthet : > Good analogy, but that could be interpreted in both ways. I used to think > destructive uploading was a major problem, but after some thoughts, as > counter-intuitive as it seems, I realized the continuity in the process > wasn't relevant. Many people simply sit with the inconsistency: ordinary life is OK, destructive copying is not even though ordinary life is equivalent to destructive copying. -- Stathis Papaioannou From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Thu Oct 28 12:30:44 2010 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado (CI)) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:30:44 -0200 Subject: [ExI] Here's an idea: Let's torture sane people! =P References: <4CC8CEBF.3010701@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: I'm feeling about ten different emotions about this subject simultaneously. My post the other day had many intents, despite being written as a bedtime flash of inspiration. First, as I have already shown, it effectively tricked the uploaders into arguing against their own fetish by forcing them to argue that no link of any kind exists between the original an the copy. I don`t think the destructive vs non-destructive or the identity issues discussed on these topics are real issues. That`s just because I happen to think that many many things will happen before we can really upload. Augmentation and enhancement will come way before that and we will be implanting cybernetic brain parts prior to even being capable of anything near uploading. When we eventually get to the point where we can actually upload, we'll be so different than we are today and we'll probably have these (and many other) issues already resolved. Uploading won't be abrupt as in today you're a meatball and tomorrow you're a virtual entity. It will be gradual. The line between meatball and cybernetic will blur more and more until we reach the point that uploading will be natural. At least that's how I see it. I may be completely wrong though. From agrimes at speakeasy.net Thu Oct 28 13:20:45 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:20:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Here's an idea: Let's torture sane people! =P In-Reply-To: References: <4CC8CEBF.3010701@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4CC978AD.2090101@speakeasy.net> chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: > 2010/10/28 Florent Berthet : >> Good analogy, but that could be interpreted in both ways. I used to think >> destructive uploading was a major problem, but after some thoughts, as >> counter-intuitive as it seems, I realized the continuity in the process >> wasn't relevant. > Many people simply sit with the inconsistency: ordinary life is OK, > destructive copying is not even though ordinary life is equivalent to > destructive copying. Bullshit. Why in the world is anyone even talking about destructive brain uploading so many years after Moravec (and many others) came up with so many better alternatives? That is the single most infuriating thing about uploaders! Second, Judging from all the arguments presented, I have come to the conclusion that uploaders drive their cars by fixating their eyes only on their rear-view mirror. If it appears that they didn't have a fatal car accident, then they must be going in the right direction! My thinking is exactly that of a feedback control system. I have an output wire and I have an input wire. If you try to pay me to care about what happens to a copy of me, you must transmit the bribe-attempt through my input wire. Because anything good must come through my input wire, I'm fiercely protective of that piece of hardware. I am happy to contemplate adding more input wires, perhaps even obsoleting the original, but if you try to come and cut it before it's obsolete then prepare to face your doom! All plans I make for the future are related to the expected voltage on my input wire. As a human being, I am strictly prohibited from attaching my equipment to any other wire. Because I'm not a dualist, I don't believe in any "essential self" that can, even in principle, be separated from it. Third. Here's another big problem with destructive uploading. There will be an interval of time between your original is murdered and your copy is born. (entirely different beings obviously). During that time you are at the whim and mercy of a maniacal technician, let's call him God because that's what he is to you. If God doesn't like homosexuals, you will either come out of the procedure a straight person or no copy of you will ever be seen. If God doesn't like heterosexuals, then you will come out a homosexual or a fetishist, or not at all. You might try to argue that there will be some restraint on God or that God will choose not to use his unlimited powers over you. Neither outcome is possible. God will be a human being or an upload himself filled with the mental in-consistencies and biases that allow someone to become an uploader. Being so enthusiastically insane, don't pretend he'll hesitate to write his biases all over your mind file! To get around that, of course, what you need to do is find a way to upgrade your brain while remaining fully conscious the entire time. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From rpwl at lightlink.com Thu Oct 28 13:50:43 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:50:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] No link between original and copy? Denied! In-Reply-To: <4CC8CEBF.3010701@speakeasy.net> References: <4CC8CEBF.3010701@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4CC97FB3.4090409@lightlink.com> Alan Grimes wrote: > I'm feeling about ten different emotions about this subject simultaneously. > > My post the other day had many intents, despite being written as a > bedtime flash of inspiration. > > First, as I have already shown, it effectively tricked the uploaders > into arguing against their own fetish by forcing them to argue that no > link of any kind exists between the original an the copy. This is emphatically not true: you must not have read my post carefully enough. If the original is destroyed at the same time as the copy is made functional, this case is exactly equivalent to the case where the original you just sits there and nothing happens (except that you experience a sudden jump from the physical location of the original to the physical location of the copy). If you insist on using your above phrasing to describe this case (You said "[I have forced the uploaders] to argue that no link of any kind exists between the original an the copy") then you are obliged to ALSO agree that there is no link of any kind between the you of now and the you of a few seconds from now. Until you understand this fundamental point you will continue to be confused about the claims you are arguing against. Richard Loosemore From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Oct 28 14:10:10 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:10:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> On Oct 27, 2010, at 2:05 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > John Clark wrote: > >> there is a 100% chance you will never have that happy subjective >> experience but instead will walk into the scanning station and find >> yourself on the rack being prodded with red hot irons. > > You've changed the implied rules again. You *don't* find yourself on the rack, you find yourself being helped out of the compilation vat or off the receiving platform or whatever, and taken into the next room or the next county to be tortured. So in your revision you don't find out you are to be tortured until a few minutes after your fait had already been sealed; I'll be damned if I see how that complication to the thought experiment adds one bit of additional enlightenment. My point was that after you're sure you are not going to be the one to get tortured is the time to breathe a sigh of relief and feel sorry for that other poor fellow, but that can only happen AFTER the scanning NEVER before; whether it is one nanosecond after or one year after is irrelevant. Good thought experiments should always be stripped down to their essentials, adding needless bells and whistles is counterproductive. > You recall settling down to be scanned, and curse the day your original was cruelly stupid enough to agree to such a barbaric deal No, you curse yourself for agreeing to do this and for not understanding how these things work. And as most people believe there is some sort of mystical "something" that the mighty original has that the mere copy does not, they would almost certainly have managed to convince themselves with emotional "reasoning" that they must be the original and it's the counterfeit that gets to live the good life. > but you know for certain that you are not he because he was in the scanning room. What are you talking about? You were in the scanning room too, you remember it every bit as clearly as he did. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From scerir at alice.it Thu Oct 28 14:40:27 2010 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 16:40:27 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <890345.38744.qm@web114420.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <002B3F7C83114BE6BE141A05C2EAC18B@PCserafino> Frankly it seems difficult to create a perfect "copy", "clone", or whatever, even in non-quantum domains. http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/dual/no-cloning.pdf If it is so, it should be a difference between the original and the clone, or between two "instances". But I can agree that - speaking of the mind/brain - the above is perhaps irrelevant. From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Oct 28 15:02:09 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:02:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <4CC8CFAC.2000403@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CC99071.2010303@satx.rr.com> On 10/28/2010 3:17 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > The point is not that the information is kept from you, it is that it > doesn't make any difference when it is revealed. You are a copy of the > Damien of a year ago, now long disintegrated. Perhaps you hadn't > considered this fact before. Perhaps you have forgotten your stipulation about torture of one of several copies. From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Oct 28 15:08:28 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:08:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> On 10/28/2010 9:10 AM, John Clark wrote: > >> but you know for certain that you are not he because he was in the >> scanning room. > > What are you talking about? You were in the scanning room too, you > remember it every bit as clearly as he did. Because *you know that he woke up in the scanning room* and therefore you are a copy. That's what I'm talking about. From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Oct 28 15:05:46 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:05:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4C6F9EA6-068F-4A3B-B4A0-7B7CBE313F97@bellsouth.net> On Oct 27, 2010, at 12:04 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Under a many worlds view, a 1/million probability of being tortured > amounts to you being duplicated (at least) a million times and > 1/million of those copies being tortured. That is not entirely correct. Everett tried to get probabilities out of his theory by counting universes but he was not able to, nor has anybody after him managed to do it; that may mean that the number of universes is larger than the countable numbers like the integers and must be of a class of infinity larger than that, like the number of points on a line, or a class of infinity larger than that like the number of all possible clock faces, or something even bigger than that. Counting wouldn't work so Everett needed another way to assign probability that was mathematically consistent so that if you combined all the probabilities in all the branches concerning an event happening you get exactly 100%. Everett found something that worked and he claimed it was the only thing that would work, the square of the amplitude of the Schrodinger Wave function. This is called the "Born Rule", it had been discovered years before Everett and had been shown experimentally to accurately assign probabilities, but nobody knew why it worked. Everett said he knew why it worked. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Oct 28 15:21:35 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:21:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> On 10/28/2010 10:08 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 10/28/2010 9:10 AM, John Clark wrote: >> >>> but you know for certain that you are not he because he was in the >>> scanning room. >> >> What are you talking about? You were in the scanning room too, you >> remember it every bit as clearly as he did. > > Because *you know that he woke up in the scanning room* and therefore > you are a copy. That's what I'm talking about. Or better still, since how this magical technology works is totally undefined, he didn't *wake up* in the scanning room, he just lay there or sat there while he was scanned, as we do when being X-rayed, then he got up, had a cup of tea, and went on his way out the same door he entered. The copies all experience something other than that: an abrupt lurch of location, or a moment of confusion, or find that 18 years have passed if they were grown from a reprogrammed somatic cell, etc. From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Oct 28 15:44:30 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 11:44:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <511842D1-AF11-412B-9D15-70FE1606060F@bellsouth.net> On Oct 28, 2010, at 11:08 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > Because *you know that he woke up in the scanning room* and therefore you are a copy. I don't know how you obtained the information that the original woke up in the scanning room, but if you did somehow know this and you did not wake up in the scanning room then there is now a difference between the two of you and the inevitable divergence has begun. And Damien be honest, would that evidence really be strong enough to convince you that you are a copy? It would be for me but then I don't attach some sort of metaphysical importance to the original. I think there is an unmentioned assumption in all this that most have but I do not, that nanotechnology can duplicate everything except for the soul; hence the plaintive cry "but it just wouldn't be me". Feel free to substitute whatever euphemism for the word "soul" that makes you comfortable. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Oct 28 16:09:43 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:09:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> On Oct 28, 2010, at 11:21 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > since how this magical technology works is totally undefined In a thought experiment of this sort all you need is for the technology not to violate any of the known laws of physics, it is unnecessary to explain how it works as long as it could theoretically work. Calling it magical is just a cheap shot. > he didn't *wake up* in the scanning room, he just lay there or sat there while he was scanned, as we do when being X-rayed, then he got up, had a cup of tea, and went on his way out the same door he entered. And at that point you can relax knowing that you had dodged a bullet, something you could not have done 5 minutes before. > The copies all experience something other than that: an abrupt lurch of location Exactly, and until the instant of that abrupt lurch their lives were identical to yours with all your hopes fears and dreams, they remember all that every bit as vividly as you do. Until that abrupt lurch they were you, but they are no longer, although they are still all Damien Broderick. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Thu Oct 28 17:01:45 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:01:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <364035E2-F6CA-4F92-B739-563093FF0921@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <8D7BE957-ED66-4DEB-AE0C-B77CF6F169CF@bellsouth.net> On Oct 27, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > > That assumes a lot of things, primarily that the upload universe is indistinguishable from the real universe. That seems a reasonable assumption because from your point of view the computer simulating you can be infinitely fast. If there is a data processing crunch then the computer can just stop your simulation for a second or a minute or a millennium while it calculates exactly how that teacup you just dropped should shatter, when it figures it out then then it can start your simulation up again; from your viewpoint the computer was infinitely fast with its calculation it even if objectively it was as slow as an old Radio Shack TRS-80. > Another is that no attempt is made, as part of the uploading process, to make the upload aware that it is, in fact, an upload. I consider that immorally deceptive. What you consider immoral is irrelevant, what Mr. Jupiter Brain considers immoral is not. > I'd never agree to allow a non-destructive upload of myself without it being made clear to the upload immediately upon activation that that's what it is. If you are very very very lucky maybe someday Mr. Jupiter Brain will give you that choice, or at least pretend to give you that choice. > >> >> There would be only one conscious experience provided the two were identical. > > > How's that? You've got two independent instantiations running on completely different substrates and you don't think there are two different consciousnesses? No I don't think there are two different consciousnesses. The concept of position is not very meaningful when talking about consciousness, and what particular substrate a consciousness is running on is so unimportant that it often has no idea what it is. For thousands of years many thought the liver was the organ that generated consciousness, others thought the heart, and the ancient Egyptians carefully preserved every part of the body EXCEPT for the brain which they just threw away. > Even if there were two uploads running in identical, synchronized virtual realities, there'd still be two different-but-identical consciousnesses. Huh? If they are identical then how are they different? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Oct 28 17:32:18 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:32:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> On 10/28/2010 11:09 AM, John Clark wrote: >> he didn't *wake up* in the scanning room, he just lay there or sat >> there while he was scanned, as we do when being X-rayed, then he got >> up, had a cup of tea, and went on his way out the same door he entered. > > And at that point you can relax knowing that you had dodged a bullet, > something you could not have done 5 minutes before. > >> The copies all experience something other than that: an abrupt lurch >> of location > > Exactly Exactly indeed. Recall Stathis's proposition: My reply was that aside from empathy for the victim, I as the original (an I would know I was the original after the scanning, as we have already established) would not care one way or the other. However, at the start of the thread, Stathis was more explicit about including the original in the exciting torture scheme: This is why I replied: I repeat that even more emphatically if we revert to Stathis's original proposal that the original as well as the copies is part of the group liable to torture. Why would anyone sane agree to undergo a procedure that was sure to inflict torment on somebody exactly like him, or even on him, the original faced with this decision? Now we can always ask some adjacent question. Suppose you know that road or air accidents are always to some small degree stochastic and out of your hands, and that the chance of dying horribly is one in a million. (It's really much worse than that: "If you average one round-trip flight per year (on the safer airlines), your lifetime odds of dying in a plane crash are less than 1 in 66,000.") Would an immortal ever get on a plane or inside a car, knowing that he or she was doomed eventually? Answer: I expect they would, just as we do now. So change Stathis's proposition to: If you could be duplicated, so that the world now contained N new instances of you, with a risk that the process will horribly mangle one of the copies (and maybe the scanning could go wrong and accidentally maim the original), would you do it? I still have to wonder why a non-narcissist would want to, but hey... My answer: unless there was some overwhelmingly weighty reason for it, I'd gracefully decline and run off as if the fiends of hell were on my heels. But wait, cries Stathis--this is *already* the case; you are being replaced atom by atom, and your chance of dying from the process is not just 1 in a million or 1 in 66,000, but 1 in 1! How do you feel about *that,* cupcake? To which I reply: I feel like shit about it, always have. But what's my alternative? Kill myself now to avoid the inevitable pain, or just get reconciled to it while doing what I can to advance research to put an end to such an atrocity? But now I've ruined the lovely clean thought experiment by bringing realism into it. Sorry about that. Damien Broderick From sparge at gmail.com Thu Oct 28 18:37:58 2010 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:37:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <8D7BE957-ED66-4DEB-AE0C-B77CF6F169CF@bellsouth.net> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <364035E2-F6CA-4F92-B739-563093FF0921@bellsouth.net> <8D7BE957-ED66-4DEB-AE0C-B77CF6F169CF@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/28 John Clark > > On Oct 27, 2010, at 1:38 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > > That assumes a lot of things, primarily that the upload universe is > indistinguishable from the real universe. > > That seems a reasonable assumption because from your point of view the > computer simulating you can be infinitely fast. If there is a data > processing crunch then the computer can just stop your simulation for a > second or a minute or a millennium while it calculates exactly how that > teacup you just dropped should shatter, when it figures it out then then it > can start your simulation up again; from your viewpoint the computer was > infinitely fast with its calculation it even if objectively it was as slow > as an old Radio Shack TRS-80. > That's an argument for the feasibility of implementing a virtual universe indistinguishable from the real universe--though not a terribly strong one. Since the thought experiment didn't specify that either way, I won't argue the point. > Another is that no attempt is made, as part of the uploading process, to > make the upload aware that it is, in fact, an upload. I consider > that immorally deceptive. > > What you consider immoral is irrelevant, what Mr. Jupiter Brain considers > immoral is not. > Mr. Jupiter Brain wasn't specified either. We know nothing about the motives behind the entities doing the upload. > I'd never agree to allow a non-destructive upload of myself without it > being made clear to the upload immediately upon activation that that's what > it is. > > If you are very very very lucky maybe someday Mr. Jupiter Brain will give > you that choice, or at least pretend to give you that choice. > I'm assuming that the experiment is being conducted by benevolent, trustworthy parties. If that's not true, all bets are off. > There would be only one conscious experience provided the two were >> identical. >> >> How's that? You've got two independent instantiations running on > completely different substrates and you don't think there are two different > consciousnesses? > > No I don't think there are two different consciousnesses. The concept of > position is not very meaningful when talking about consciousness, and what > particular substrate a consciousness is running on is so unimportant that it > often has no idea what it is. For thousands of years many thought the liver > was the organ that generated consciousness, others thought the heart, and > the ancient Egyptians carefully preserved every part of the body EXCEPT for > the brain which they just threw away. > It's not just a difference of position. As you've pointed out above, the clocks of the different substrates can run at different rates. And, obviously, the "universes" available to each can be different--there's nothing that says they all have to implement the same physics. > Even if there were two uploads running in identical, synchronized virtual > realities, there'd still be two different-but-identical consciousnesses. > > Huh? If they are identical then how are they different? > If I have two identical apples in my hands, they're still two separate apples, not one. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Thu Oct 28 18:04:31 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:04:31 +0200 Subject: [ExI] TransVision 2010, October 22-24, 2010 - First videos online Message-ID: TransVision 2010, October 22-24, 2010 - First videos online http://telexlr8.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/transvision-2010-october-22-24-2010/ We have uploaded the first bunch of videos taken from Teleplace. We will upload the rest within a couple of days. We have also started uploading the full collection of HD videos taken in Milan, but completing the collection will take a few weeks. G. On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > TransVision 2010, October 22-24, 2010 > http://giulioprisco.blogspot.com/2010/10/transvision-2010-october-22-24-2010.html > > TransVision 2010 is over! I wish to thank all speakers and > participants, those who came to Milan and those who participated > remotely via Teleplace. Special thanks to Kim for her work at the main > Teleplace workstation and for handling many technical problems, and to > Cosimo and Jacopo for their work at the HD video camera. I wish to > thank the volunteer Italian to English translator (I am not mentioning > your name here because I guess you prefer it this way, but you know > who you are and thank you so much), who gave also a great unscheduled > presentation of the Polytopia Project. And of course I also want to > thank Riccardo and Stefano for their support in organizing and running > the conference. In particular Stefano should really have stayed at > home to recover from recent surgery, but he made a special effort to > be with us. > > In the first two pictures, Dan Massey and Max More giving their talks. > In the foreground, the Terasem 1 O'Neill Island One Space Habitat, a > Bernal sphere model built by Simon Deering for the Terasem Movement of > Martine Rothblatt and presented at TV10 by Khannea Suntzu. The model > is now on its way to Florida to be delivered to the Terasem Movement. > We had many great talks, not only about visionary technologies but > also about literature, politics, philosophy and art. The second half > of the first day has been dedicated to Italian neo-Futurist literary > and artistic movement, but strike neo- because Futurism is always Neo > by definition. I have been disappointed by not seeing as many people > as I hoped: I counted about 65 participants in Milan over 3 days > including a dog. The problem is that participating in conferences > costs money and time, and in my own presentation (which I shortened to > less than ten minutes to make time for other speakers) I proposed > online conferences 2.0 as a solution. > > We had about 30 remote participants in the in the TVirtual online > extension of TransVision 2010, hosted by the teleXLR8 project based on > the Teleplace online telepresence platform. Remote participants have > been able to watch all talks in realtime, and interact with speakers > and other participants. In the picture above, Max More's talk is shown > to remote participants in Teleplace, and the virtual Teleplace > conference hall is shown to the participants in Milan. We used two > Teleplace workstations, one to stream the video and voice of the > speaker and to interact with remote participants, and one to stream > the speaker's slides. Lesson learned: if the text on the slides is > small it is better to upload also the original .ppt or .pdf to > Teleplace. We did this in realtime during the conference, but we > should have done it in advance. For those speakers without > presentations in .ppt or .pdf, we used the second Teleplace > workstation to show the audience in Milan to the audience in > Teleplace. > > In the afternoon of the second day we have reversed the procedure > outlined above and shown remote talks from speakers in Teleplace to > the audience in Milan. After great talks by Eugen Leitl and Robert > Geraci, Natasha Vita-More started her talk (picture above)... but 20 > minutes into Natasha's talk all the Internet connections in the > conference hall in Milan died, perhaps due to overload caused by too > many WiFi connections in parallel. The Internet servive provider's > technicians could not fix the problem. The remote participants in > Teleplace continued without us, and we have video recordings of the > talks by remote speakers. However, all remote speakers have been > invited to repeat their talks to the teleXLR8 community. > > In the morning of the third day, not only the Internet connections in > the conference hall were still dead, but also the screen projection > system was dead! I had a (very) heavy-handed "exchange of views" with > the hotel's personnel (wife says I can be quite unpleasant on > occasions), and the technical problems were fixed. > > This was a very interesting event, with great talks by great speakers. > I am happy to have seen again many old friends and made many new ones. > In the picture above, some speakers and participants at a dinner after > the end of the conference. I was not really able to pay attention to > any of the talks including my own, and I look forward to watching the > video coverage. We recorded everything on video, both in HD with the > cameras on site, and from Teleplace. The videos will be available > online and on the conference's DVD proceedings. The videos recorded in > Teleplace will be available online in a few days, and those recorded > on site in a few weeks. > > I have started two blog posts as containers and index pages for > material to be posted later. Both posts have the same title as this > one. The post on the TransVision 2010 blog will have links to the HD > videos recorded in Milan, and the post on the teleXLR8 blog will have > links to the videos recorded in Teleplace. The Twitter feed created by > participants at #TV2010 has the twitting history of the conference. > From atymes at gmail.com Thu Oct 28 16:51:13 2010 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 09:51:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Countering Sanctimonious Luddism In-Reply-To: <4CC937DA.1030503@gmail.com> References: <4CC937DA.1030503@gmail.com> Message-ID: Address any points they make? For example: "ignoring the third of the world without electricity". 1) That's "third world", not "third of the world". Back in 2003, electricity was available to 3/4 of the world, and it's gotten steadily better since. This is a problem that's being solved, fast enough that in a few decades, most of those without electricity will probably be those who choose to live that way. 2) What about life for the majority of the world that has electricity? Don't they deserve something better too? Even if it was a third of the world without, that's two thirds of the world with, who'd be left in the cold if everything went only to improving that one third. That's no privileged elite - not just the "rich and white" - that's MOST OF THE WORLD. They'll be improving themselves anyway, so why not try to predict and shape how that's going to go? 3) The developing world can catch up or even pass established players. It wasn't that long ago that China was a backwater. Today? Superpower. Who can say for sure that South Africa won't be a player 50 years from now, or that Brazil won't bring most of South America along for its ride? Of course, all that requires having a way to address them. Quite a few of these who say their views in a venue where they can get debunked, do get debunked. But take this example. There is no comments section, no way on that page itself to point out these fallacies. There are links to other pages where one could perhaps comment - but those are other pages, and thus don't exist to the point of view of someone who randomly comes by, reads the comic, and picks up its point of view. On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 1:44 AM, AlgaeNymph wrote: > In concise cartoon form is an argument I've had the misfortune to have > dealt with: > > http://picturesforsadchildren.com/index.php?comicID=102 > > This is also something we're going to have to deal with, so it's best if we > figure out a way how. No, I don't think just ignoring it will work since > people who seem Righteous & Angry get listened to by people, and by politics > when enough people are listening. I'm not looking for solutions to winning > over sanctimonious Luddites but rather the mainstream culture. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 19:49:23 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 12:49:23 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <187380.22132.qm@web114413.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Stathis Papaioannou wrote: Ben Zaiboc wrote: >> Here's a thought experiment: ?Imagine a machine which >> could create two atoms where there was one, and move >> each atom exactly 1 metre away from the original >> position, in opposite directions, very quickly. This >> process is applied to your entire body, creating two >> exact copies, 2 metres apart. >> >> So which one is 'you'? > Both have equal claim to being ?you?, but each copy feels that it is > the real ?you?. This translates to a 1/2 probability of finding > yourself the copy on the left or the copy on the right. This is a > *subjective* probability, an illusion if you prefer. It is what is > supposed to happen in ordinary life under a multiverse model of > reality: when you toss a coin one version of you sees heads and > another version sees tails, but you have the illusion that you > ?become? one or other version with a 1/2 probability of seeing heads > or tails. If 'you' find yourself 'in' only one copy, what is 'in' the other? Makes no sense, does it? Each you is as 'real' as any other. There's no need for the "but" in your first sentence. Each copy is quite correct in feeling that it's the real you, because it is. 'You' are no longer unique. There's nothing mystical or mysterious about it, it's just a consequence of the fact (as far as we know) that 'you' are what your brain does. It's not intuitive, certainly, and it's difficult to wrap your head around, but it has to be true. 'Yourself' has been duplicated. They are both yourself. As John K Clark has already said, there is 100% probability of finding yourself to be copy x, and 100% probability of finding yourself to be copy y. Under these circumstances, /there is no singular you/. Not any more. There are two of you. Each one is the 'real' one. Each one has an identical history up until the split. How can it be possible for 'you' to only exist in one of them? Can you see why this hanging on to the idea of a singular you, in the face of copying is tantamount to dualism? If there is indeed a singular you, that 'goes' into one or other of the copies, what the hell is it? It must be something unknown to science. My question "So which one is 'you'?" is a trick question, really. The only possible answer (assuming that souls do not exist) is "both of them". Choosing just one (the 'real' you) implies that souls, or some equivalent, do exist. Ben Zaiboc From bbenzai at yahoo.com Thu Oct 28 20:32:32 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 13:32:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [ExI] Uploading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <483394.79931.qm@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Alan Grimes wrote: > it might be > possible to build a hybrid mind architecture with a very > non-zero chance > of success and with benefits far beyond what anyone has > ever promised on behalf of uploading. ... > Are there any real transhumanists on this list even > slightly interested > in becoming a million times smarter than they are right > now? Now you're confusing me. First, you appear to be vehemently against the very idea of uploading (I'm still not sure why), then you throw in the concept of "a hybrid mind architecture" using neural interfacing? You've just described one uploading scenario! There are many (if not most) people on this list interested in becoming many times smarter than they are now, and the first step in that process has to be some form of uploading into a non-biological brain. That may turn out to be the best way to unravel the architecture of our minds, and almost certainly the only realistic way to radically improve them. While our minds are still implemented in meat, there's little chance of being able to improve them in any significant way. Your suggestion is an interesting one in that it would presumably give the uploadee some control over the pace and degree of the process. Some people might want to stop halfway, and remain part biological at least for a while (Why? Beats me! But there would surely be some). Of course, their hand might be forced eventually, if life-extension tech. doesn't exist to keep the biological part alive indefinitely. I imagine some kind of 'parallel running' would be used to fine-tune the non-biological parts, and when bio and non-bio functions are perfectly aligned, the bio can be slowly phased out. Or maybe the whole brain would be kept intact, and the non-bio part would grow so much that it was implementing the vast majority of your consciousness. Eventually losing the original brain would be of no real consequence. Ben Zaiboc From agrimes at speakeasy.net Thu Oct 28 21:18:29 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 17:18:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] No link between original and copy? Denied! In-Reply-To: <4CC97FB3.4090409@lightlink.com> References: <4CC8CEBF.3010701@speakeasy.net> <4CC97FB3.4090409@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <4CC9E8A5.5020902@speakeasy.net> > If you insist on using your above phrasing to describe this case (You > said "[I have forced the uploaders] to argue that no link of any kind > exists between the original an the copy") then you are obliged to ALSO > agree that there is no link of any kind between the you of now and the > you of a few seconds from now. WTF? Now I'm [making the mistake of] responding to this lame post, in a few minutes I'm going to be on the phone with the company that owes me a $4500 electric motor since Sept 1, then I'm might be sharing a lightbulb joke with the list after I finish reading a bunch of other lame posts... Nobody can say that any of those activities will be carried out by a different person. (though someone else might come up with a lightbulb joke). Each interval of time can be subdivided down to 10^-18 seconds or so. At none of those trillions upon trillions of instants of time could I be said to not exist. Nor will there be any other conceivable discontinuity between my states as nothing has stopped, nothing has been restarted, nothing is outside of the light-cone of where it could have been. The connection between myself and myself a second ago and a second hence is perfect and unbreakable. Furthermore I have both my memory and my (weak) precognitive sense forming a direct link. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From spike66 at att.net Thu Oct 28 21:29:42 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 14:29:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com><4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com><938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net><71854.10336.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com><314047.61271.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Well, I'll be damned. Three days after I opined thus: > From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] > ... > ...It is sufficiently clear to me that there is > a strong connection between genes and behavior, although the > specific mechanism is not understood. Like a lot of things, > there is more than one gene responsible. If we discover for > instance that genes strongly influence one's political view > (I think they do) then most political debate becomes largely > pointless... this shows up: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/28/researchers-liberal-gene-genetics- politics/?test=latestnews Quoted from the article: Researchers Find the 'Liberal Gene' Don't hold liberals responsible for their opinion -- they can't help themselves. A new study has concluded that ideology is not just a social thing; it's built into the DNA, borne along by a gene called DRD4. Tagged "the liberal gene," DRD4 is the first specific bit of human DNA that predisposes people to certain political views, the study's authors claim... I liked this: This isn't a typical gene association study," he said. "There's a combination of genes and environment that matter." {8^D I like it. The article has the ring of truth to it. For a long time I have pondered why it is that my brother and I are so opposite on everything political, yet we have always gotten along fine. Back in the late 60s and early 70s, there was a show called 60 Minutes. Now of course it has lost its credibility because of its association with disgraced "newscaster" Dan Rather, but back then they had a segment at the end called Point-counterpoint, with Jack Kilpatrick and Shana Alexander. For reasons we never understood, my brother was always in perfect agreement with Shana, and I was nearly always on board with Jack. We had very similar influences all along, lived in similar times, only 14 months difference in our ages, even had pretty much all the same friends. All I can think of is he inherited the DRD4 gene and I didn't. spike From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Oct 28 23:20:26 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:20:26 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:32 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > But wait, cries Stathis--this is *already* the case; you are being replaced > atom by atom, and your chance of dying from the process is not just 1 in a > million or 1 in 66,000, but 1 in 1! How do you feel about *that,* cupcake? > To which I reply: I feel like shit about it, always have. But what's my > alternative? Kill myself now to avoid the inevitable pain, or just get > reconciled to it while doing what I can to advance research to put an end to > such an atrocity? I don't consider the natural atom by atom replacement death, so to be consistent I don't consider destructive copying by artificial means death either. In a sentence that's the whole argument. -- Stathis Papaioannou From thespike at satx.rr.com Thu Oct 28 23:49:46 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 18:49:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> On 10/28/2010 6:20 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > In a sentence that's the whole argument. A friend writes on another list: ====================== Constance Reid, in The Search of E. T. Bell, discusses Bell's first book. It was a work of mathematical theory, rather than mathematical history. She quotes a wonderful footnote by Bell, which reads in its entirety: * Hence, etc. ====================== Damien Broderick From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Oct 29 00:01:05 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:01:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] No link between original and copy? Denied! In-Reply-To: <4CC9E8A5.5020902@speakeasy.net> References: <4CC8CEBF.3010701@speakeasy.net> <4CC97FB3.4090409@lightlink.com> <4CC9E8A5.5020902@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/28 Alan Grimes : >> If you insist on using your above phrasing to describe this case (You >> said "[I have forced the uploaders] to argue that no link of any kind >> exists between the original an the copy") then you are obliged to ALSO >> agree that there is no link of any kind between the you of now and the >> you of a few seconds from now. > > WTF? > > Now I'm [making the mistake of] responding to this lame post, in a few > minutes I'm going to be on the phone with the company that owes me a > $4500 electric motor since Sept 1, then I'm might be sharing a lightbulb > joke with the list after I finish reading a bunch of other lame posts... > Nobody can say that any of those activities will be carried out by a > different person. (though someone else might come up with a lightbulb > joke). Each interval of time can be subdivided down to 10^-18 seconds or > so. At none of those trillions upon trillions of instants of time could > I be said to not exist. Nor will there be any other conceivable > discontinuity between my states as nothing has stopped, nothing has been > restarted, nothing is outside of the light-cone of where it could have > been. The connection between myself and myself a second ago and a second > hence is perfect and unbreakable. Furthermore I have both my memory and > my (weak) precognitive sense forming a direct link. There is no way to win on these identity discussions. Using any argument from the long and windy road back to your starting point as support for some other serious idea will serve to undermine the serious thought. The identity threads (and the whole-cloth into which they are woven) is intractable. You/I/We are unlikely to change anyone's opinion. Further, I suspect that memory lends no credibility or authority to your claim. I could surgically remove memories and you'd still be you - or you wouldn't. 'proves nothing. We could drug you (or you could drug me, w/e) and through a series of suggestions convince each other that we're entirely unlike who we once believed ourselves to be. I am not the person my Facebook-friends remember, but in some cases who I am today is within a near enough Hamming distance that we are within a tolerable threshold of sameness to be good enough. This may be the direction you were heading with weak precognitive sense (assuming such exists) that your expectation of who you will become within the interval of your predictive power that your arrival in the new instance is within acceptable variance. Otherwise the snapshot of who you were and the intention to change slightly into the snapshot's future would not match properly with your current memory of who you recently were. When that happens (and you admit it to anyone) you are likely granted audience with special doctors and they arrange for accommodations with padded walls and a new wardrobe with jackets that zip up the back. From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Oct 29 00:07:32 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:07:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Here's an idea: Let's torture sane people! =P In-Reply-To: References: <4CC8CEBF.3010701@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 7:59 AM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > 2010/10/28 Florent Berthet : > >> Good analogy, but that could be interpreted in both ways. I used to think >> destructive uploading was a major problem, but after some thoughts, as >> counter-intuitive as it seems, I realized the continuity in the process >> wasn't relevant. > > Many people simply sit with the inconsistency: ordinary life is OK, > destructive copying is not even though ordinary life is equivalent to > destructive copying. Yeah, and the ordinary life is so damned slow about the process... with all the slow breakdown of parts through normal "wear." I mean, I'm not even doing anything very strenuous. Can't we build a chassis with a higher MTBF? From agrimes at speakeasy.net Fri Oct 29 00:15:16 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:15:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Uploading In-Reply-To: <483394.79931.qm@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <483394.79931.qm@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CCA1214.8060806@speakeasy.net> chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: > Alan Grimes wrote: > >> it might be >> possible to build a hybrid mind architecture with a very >> non-zero chance >> of success and with benefits far beyond what anyone has >> ever promised on behalf of uploading. > ... >> Are there any real transhumanists on this list even >> slightly interested >> in becoming a million times smarter than they are right >> now? > Now you're confusing me. No, it's your fundamental nature to be confused. I can't help that. =( > First, you appear to be vehemently against the very idea > of uploading (I'm still not sure why), then you throw in > the concept of "a hybrid mind architecture" using > neural interfacing? > You've just described one uploading scenario! No. I haven't. Uploading is very strictly defined as a destructive scanning of the brain followed by a simulation of that exact brain pattern (including all of its defects) in a computer. This procedure is discussed in great depth in the "brain emulation roadmap" by Anders Sandberg, which I consider to be the definitive work on the subject. In *ALL* discussions of the subject, without exception, since the beginning, the destructive procedure has been assumed as the working model. In 90% of the other papers on the subject, the destructive approach is again assumed. In the recent discussions on this list, there have been no shortage of people defending the destructive approach, and accusing me of being delusional/stupid for thinking otherwise. (Due recognition of people who proposed other procedures such as reversable uploading.) Nobody, anywhere, thinks of a situation involving an AI substrate and a neural interface when someone mentions uploading. I invite you to spend the entire weekend trying to find a serious proposal by a prominent author for any kind of hybrid intelligence that is not intended only as a stop-gap for full destructive brain uploading. Uploading == destructive brain uploading with full brain emulation and *NOTHING* else. What you are doing is attempting to co-opt me and the movement I want to create to provide an alternative to uploading -- and that pisses me off, Ben. =| > There are many (if not most) people on this list interested > in becoming many times smarter than they are now, and the > first step in that process has to be some form of uploading > into a non-biological brain. The non-biological part, I partially agree with. The uploading part (see above), no. Uploading is uploading. Using a Cray XE6 as extra gray matter is not. (OMG: 1 million core scalability!!!) > That may turn out to be the best way to unravel the > architecture of our minds, and almost certainly the only > realistic way to radically improve them. I am fully in favor of using uploading as a research tool. Take the brain of an accident victim or something and upload it for the sake of science. I'd be willing to treat such a being as a person but it's not the accident victim, it's a robot loosely based on what happened to be in his head after he died. > While our minds are still implemented in meat, there's little > chance of being able to improve them in any significant way. Sure they are. If you don't insist on carrying your brain around with you, it's perfectly reasonable that it could be expanded biologically. Advanced CMT would also serve as a mostly biological enhancement. Additionally one could consider merging several bio-brains together. My point though is that you are both unimaginative and wrong. (And it's far far worse to be unimaginative). > Your suggestion is an interesting one in that it would > presumably give the uploadee some control over the > pace and degree of the process. Some people might want to > stop halfway, and remain part biological at least for a while > (Why? Beats me! But there would surely be some). ^^^^^^^^^ That's cuz you're an UPLOADER!!! > Of course, their hand might be forced eventually, > if life-extension tech. doesn't exist to keep the biological > part alive indefinitely. And why shouldn't it? > I imagine some kind of 'parallel running' would be used to > fine-tune the non-biological parts, and when bio and non-bio > functions are perfectly aligned, the bio can be slowly phased out. > Or maybe the whole brain would be kept intact, and the non-bio > part would grow so much that it was implementing the vast > majority of your consciousness. Eventually losing the > original brain would be of no real consequence. Yeah. But then there is no reason to perfectly align them, let each specialize. I would imagine having a network of mind-hosts, each hosting k/N of my consciousness. The nodes on the network would be on a continuous rolling upgrade cycle. -- every time a new processor came on the market, the oldest node in the network would be retired. Furthermore, there would be a good deal of diversity in the network, I might maintain several chains of nodes using a broad array of computing technologies, limited by my resources for maintaining the network. The network would be heavily redundant. I would demand perfect reliability from each machine and at no time will more than one node be scheduled for downtime. When a new node is brought on line, it would simply be plugged into its intended role and allowed to learn-adapt into the matrix and begin functioning as a part of the whole. When a node is retired, any useful work it is still doing will be transferred to the newest node. No information will be directly copied off the old machine because it is probably crufty and inefficient. Instead the old node would re-play it's memory and the newest will learn it and organize it in the most efficient way, filtering out any unwanted junk. But the system as a whole will remain on-line. A network of this type could wipe the floor with any uploader. There is no comparison. The networked consciousness approach is a quantum leap over stupid, backwards, uploading. Furthermore, even when working properly, an upload will end up being stopped and rebooted all the time, so it would be very difficult to say it's living at all. A network such as what I propose, could remain stable for millions of years. I'm terrified that all these myopic, dim-witted, backwards thinking, idiotic, suicidal, uploaders will rule the world and vastly superior approaches will be precluded before they can be put in place. =( -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From agrimes at speakeasy.net Fri Oct 29 00:32:39 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 20:32:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Ye Olde Lightbulb Joke. Message-ID: <4CCA1627.6060804@speakeasy.net> How many uploaders does it take to screw in a lightbulb? FIFTY!!! (And it will take them that many years too). They'll spend the first twenty years arguing in favor of the equivalency of screwing in a simulation of a lightbulb with the act of screwing in the lightbulb. Then they'll visciously dismiss the fundamentalist ludites who insist on real hardware-based lightbulbs. They'll argue that if you make a perfect atomically precise copy of a lightbulb and then smash the original, you'll still have a lightbulb (completely ignoring any reminder that we're talking about screwing it in rather than copying it). Then, for the next 15 years they'll research every fascet of the lightbulb, it's mass, it's materials, the friction coeficient of it's base, the temperature dependent resistance of the filament, the spectrum of it's emission at various temperatures. It's warmup time and specific heat. Then they'll get into the electrostatics of the filament with the free-space charge and how that will affect the loss of tungsten atoms off the filament, and the changes of the characteristics of the filament over the bulb's lifespan (or they'll make a super trans-lightbulb that doesn't burn out). Then they'll simulate a room and figure out all the muscle-kenetics of taking the bulb out of the package and screwing it into the socket. They will do extensive studies to exactly simulate the neural interractions one would feel when screwing in a lightbulb. Finally, they will present you with the simulation and say "See! here's your lightbulb, all screwed in!" And if you complain that you are still in the dark, they'll upload you so that you can experience the light. If your copy persists in complaining, they'll force you to screw in virtual lightbulbs until you stop complaining about there not being any actual light. Meanwhile I will have converted to LED lighting. ;) -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From florent.berthet at gmail.com Fri Oct 29 00:33:12 2010 From: florent.berthet at gmail.com (Florent Berthet) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 02:33:12 +0200 Subject: [ExI] No link between original and copy? Denied! In-Reply-To: <4CC9E8A5.5020902@speakeasy.net> References: <4CC8CEBF.3010701@speakeasy.net> <4CC97FB3.4090409@lightlink.com> <4CC9E8A5.5020902@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: This is the classical uploading debate. You are saying "I don't want to go through a destructive uploading because that would be like making a clone of me, and then killing me. I don't want my CLONE to live, I want MYSELF to live!" This is the obvious intuitive response. This is what I thought some times ago. But it's wrong. I'll try to be as clear as possible, but please keep an open mind. To grasp this weird notion, you have to imagine different situations : First, imagine that, during your sleep, all your atoms are instantly teleported exactly one millimeter to your left. You wouldn't even notice. Wouldn't you say the teleported you is the same as you? It's still you, just one millimeter to the left, right? If I offered you a thousand dollars to teleport you by 1mm during your sleep, wouldn't you accept? Now, imagine all your atoms are instantly teleported one meter to the left during your sleep. Surely the same principle applies, you would still be the same person, just in a different place. Ok, now imagine your atoms are teleported one meter to the left, but there is a delay of one second between the moment you disappear and the moment you reappear to your left. I don't see why that would change anything to the previous cases, right ? You still wouldn't notice a thing. There would be no consequence whatsoever. Well now imagine, instead of a delay during teleportation, there is a quick lag AFTER your reappearance where your initial self is still in the initial place, but just for one second. Once again, I don't see what would be different. In the end, it's still an unnoticed change in places. However, this last case is no different than copying yourself and killing the original, which is the notion you don't agree with. So, where do you draw the line? In fact, there is no line to draw. Your atoms are not special. You are composed of the same atoms as trees. A carbon atom is identical to another carbon atom. We could replace all your atoms by new ones, one by one, throwing the old ones in a trash, and you would be the exact same being. So specific atoms are not what makes you YOU. But if it's not your atoms that make you YOU in a sense that you would always put a priority on yourself rather than on your copies, what is it that make you special? Logically, the only thing left that could justify this behavior is the continuity of consciousness. It's like saying "I am important to myself because there is a continuity in my brain that makes me a singular person. If this continuity is broken, I no longer exist." Sure, the consciousness can be represented as a stream. But this stream is not continuous. When you sleep, it slows down and fade, shutting off for several minutes or hours, and then you wake up, feeling like the night only lasted a few moments. There really is no continuity in this stream of consciousness. We have the illusion there is one because obviously we can't notice the absence of stream when we sleep of when we pass out, but in reality, our consciousness is discontinuous. The most extreme example is the one of comatose people, who can wake up after several years, thinking that they just slept for a night. In these cases, their consciousness turned off, and then, for some reason, it turned on again. You could argue that the small electric activity that can still occur in their brain during coma is what keeps the continuity on, but is this really so? We could imagine their brain totally shutting off of all activity and then coming back again, but even then, would we say they aren't the same person just because their brain was just an inert mass for a period of time. Then again, we could replace some of the neurons in their brains by similar ones and they wouldn't notice. In fact we could replace a whole brain hemisphere and they wouldn't notice. Heck, their whole brain could be totally replaced by the exact same one (made with "new" atoms), and it wouldn't matter to them in the moment of waking up. *The phenomenon of their consciousness would be the exact same.* So, to conclude, the fact that some particular atoms are in your brain is not what makes you a unique original. And continuity is also irrelevant : a brain can be shut down and turned on again without consequences. As impossible as it may seem, to kill you in your sleep and to replace you by your copy is no different than letting you sleep. There is no unique and "real" you that is different than your copies, there are only patterns of atoms that form a consciousness made of your thoughts, feelings, and memories. These patterns can exist in any place, at any time, and none of them is special. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rpwl at lightlink.com Fri Oct 29 02:51:58 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:51:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] No link between original and copy? Denied! In-Reply-To: <4CC9E8A5.5020902@speakeasy.net> References: <4CC8CEBF.3010701@speakeasy.net> <4CC97FB3.4090409@lightlink.com> <4CC9E8A5.5020902@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4CCA36CE.5030608@lightlink.com> Alan Grimes wrote: >> If you insist on using your above phrasing to describe this case (You >> said "[I have forced the uploaders] to argue that no link of any kind >> exists between the original an the copy") then you are obliged to ALSO >> agree that there is no link of any kind between the you of now and the >> you of a few seconds from now. > > WTF? > > Now I'm [making the mistake of] responding to this lame post, in a few > minutes I'm going to be on the phone with the company that owes me a > $4500 electric motor since Sept 1, then I'm might be sharing a lightbulb > joke with the list after I finish reading a bunch of other lame posts... > Nobody can say that any of those activities will be carried out by a > different person. (though someone else might come up with a lightbulb > joke). Each interval of time can be subdivided down to 10^-18 seconds or > so. At none of those trillions upon trillions of instants of time could > I be said to not exist. Nor will there be any other conceivable > discontinuity between my states as nothing has stopped, nothing has been > restarted, nothing is outside of the light-cone of where it could have > been. The connection between myself and myself a second ago and a second > hence is perfect and unbreakable. Furthermore I have both my memory and > my (weak) precognitive sense forming a direct link. Oh dear, do I have to spell it out in words of one syllable? ;-) I thought you were smart enough to understand the elementary linkages between these (very old) chains of argument. Apparently not. When you (in your words) forced your opponents to admit "that no link of any kind exists between the original and the copy" you were winning a hollow victory, because the LACK of that linkage is the same lack of linkage between the you of tonight and the you that wakes up after a period of unconsciousness (i.e. sleep). In both the duplication case and the sleep case, there is a discontinuity of consciousness. The other continuities and discontinuities, which are not the same between the two cases (i.e. the fact that the sleep case involves the same hardware before and after, whereas the duplication does not) are, ACCORDING TO THE CLAIMS OF YOUR OPPONENTS, of no consequence at all. Your opponents are saying "Sure, there is no tangible link between copy and original .... but that is because all the supposed links that exist between, say, the you before and after you go to sleep, are not meaningful or relevant. As far as consciousness is concerned, going to sleep is the same as being destroyed and then recreated as a duplicate: it is the same "you" before and after in both cases, because the only meaningful concept of "you" that can be defended is one in which mere physical continuity means nothing. So your opponents are not conceding anything, because when they say that there is no significant link between original and duplicate, they would say the same between a person before and after sleep. The extension to the non-sleep case is trivial. We can imagine a micro-sleep of arbitrary duration inserted into your regular waking consciousness. (In fact we do not have to go that far: your regular waking consciousness has lots of peculiarities that make it not a unitary thing anyhow... but I digress). With that extension in place, we can say that actually when you think that you are continually conscious from one moment to the next, you are perceiving a continuity that would look the same even when micro-sleeps are inserted, so in effect there is no meaningful connection between the you of now and the you of a few seconds from now. QED. uuuuuh! Thanks for playing. Richard Loosemore From rpwl at lightlink.com Fri Oct 29 02:54:52 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:54:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: References: <867895.93149.qm@web114407.mail.gq1.yahoo.com><4CC1A2CA.40604@lightlink.com> <4CC1ACAE.70401@satx.rr.com><4CC1C567.4090803@lightlink.com> <4CC1CFEB.8090603@satx.rr.com><938FFB78-955D-41A2-AC78-5C143BA924B0@bellsouth.net><71854.10336.qm@web30101.mail.mud.yahoo.com><314047.61271.qm@web30107.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CCA377C.30001@lightlink.com> spike wrote: > Well, I'll be damned. Three days after I opined thus: > >> From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] >> ... >> ...It is sufficiently clear to me that there is >> a strong connection between genes and behavior, although the >> specific mechanism is not understood. Like a lot of things, >> there is more than one gene responsible. If we discover for >> instance that genes strongly influence one's political view >> (I think they do) then most political debate becomes largely >> pointless... > > this shows up: > > http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2010/10/28/researchers-liberal-gene-genetics- > politics/?test=latestnews > > Quoted from the article: > > Researchers Find the 'Liberal Gene' > > Don't hold liberals responsible for their opinion -- they can't help > themselves. > > A new study has concluded that ideology is not just a social thing; it's > built into the DNA, borne along by a gene called DRD4. Tagged "the liberal > gene," DRD4 is the first specific bit of human DNA that predisposes people > to certain political views, the study's authors claim... > > I liked this: > > This isn't a typical gene association study," he said. "There's a > combination of genes and environment that matter." > > {8^D > > I like it. The article has the ring of truth to it. For a long time I have > pondered why it is that my brother and I are so opposite on everything > political, yet we have always gotten along fine. Back in the late 60s and > early 70s, there was a show called 60 Minutes. Now of course it has lost > its credibility because of its association with disgraced "newscaster" Dan > Rather, but back then they had a segment at the end called > Point-counterpoint, with Jack Kilpatrick and Shana Alexander. For reasons > we never understood, my brother was always in perfect agreement with Shana, > and I was nearly always on board with Jack. We had very similar influences > all along, lived in similar times, only 14 months difference in our ages, > even had pretty much all the same friends. All I can think of is he > inherited the DRD4 gene and I didn't. Taken in simultaneously by the anti-liberal propaganda machine AND the neuroscience bullshit machine? Ouch, that's gotta hurt. :-) P.S. I guess all those people I know who flipped their political allegiances from once side to the other.... they must have had gene therapy? ;-) Richard Loosemore From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Oct 29 03:08:27 2010 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:08:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Uploading In-Reply-To: <4CCA1214.8060806@speakeasy.net> References: <483394.79931.qm@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CCA1214.8060806@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/28 Alan Grimes : > > That's cuz you're an UPLOADER!!! > Since you have made your position so abundantly clear that the term "uploader" is an epithet, I take offense to you going on calling people names. I doubt you would appreciate the same treatment. We get it, you don't like the concept of upload. You are starting to attack _people_ whom you are now calling uploaders as a derogatory term. That's sounding to me like an intolerant bigot. I don't like people who act like boorish jerks... but whatever - I also don't have the patience (or interest) to continually make this point every time I check my inbox. I won't bother you with further opinion from me. From agrimes at speakeasy.net Fri Oct 29 03:14:31 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:14:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] No link between original and copy? Denied! In-Reply-To: References: <4CC8CEBF.3010701@speakeasy.net> <4CC97FB3.4090409@lightlink.com> <4CC9E8A5.5020902@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4CCA3C17.4090407@speakeasy.net> chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: > This is the classical uploading debate. I'm sick to death of your patronizing drivel, all of you, especially you, chrome://messenger!!! In the past few weeks I've made a terrible mistake. My mistake is that I've allowed myself to, once again, be sucked into the uploading debate. My error is that by allowing myself to do so, I become framed and defined by that debate -- as the person who is against uploading. It's the same error atheists make when they define themselves as being against the belief in god. (Obviously Pastafarianism is the only true religion). By doing so, the atheists give the church power, and I have been giving feeding into the uploader's domination of transhumanism. My message is that I need a new transhumanism, a transhumanism that embraces all possibilities, not just ones that relate to destructive brain uploading. I will accomplish nothing by replying to your drivel, (which I read to the letter), therefore I won't. You are a victim of a viscous con and won't see the error of your ways even after you're dead and copied. I have come to realize that the people who are suceptable to this con are the exact people I don't need. What I do need, is a group of equally dedicated people who are willing to at least pretend to be totally committed to some equally absurd idea. I hope that they can counter balance the almighty roar of pro-uploading devotees that we're now witnessing. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From spike66 at att.net Fri Oct 29 04:01:19 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:01:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] holy grail, batman! computer sim of a cell Message-ID: <277E759FFDF94556BECE6946271C160C@spike> A couple days ago, I commented: From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] Subject: holy grail, batman! computer sim of a cell >...Hey, cool. A local researcher claims he has a software simulation of a cell...So this Mormon guy with the secretive sounding name will see if he can convince us he has found the holy grail of computational biology. I sure hope he has done it. If so, we can write sims that work on other cells, and then can create networks to simulate multicelled beasts, then, given enough computing power, perhaps provided by harnessing the idle processor cycles that YOU are so egregiously WASTING right now, we can eventually simulate evolution, which would sim us from protobonobos to humans and right on past the present day, and lead eventually to a singularity...spike OK, so I went to the talk this evening. I would summarize it this way: he does not have the holy grail in hand, but he sees it. There are still a few dragons guarding the holy grail of mathematizing biology. His work was impressive enough that Stanford awarded him a PhD for it. His sim takes about 20 hours of computer time to go from division to division. I suggested that he harness the power of unused idle computers by volunteers, such as projects GIMPS, Folding at home and SETI at home. The cell he was studying is the smallest known living organism, mycoplasma genitalium. I offered that although it could bring in great numbers of volunteers, there may be a number of misunderstandings and possibly disappointments arising from his project should he call it Genitalium at home. The geeks appreciated the gag. Aside: someone in the audience mentioned the singularity, and everyone there seemed to know what he was talking about. That was the first time I have ever heard it mentioned in a meat world meeting that wasn't specifically the transhumanist, sf, H+, extropian, singularitarian crowd. spike From spike66 at att.net Fri Oct 29 04:16:51 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 21:16:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] holy grail, batman! computer sim of a cell In-Reply-To: <277E759FFDF94556BECE6946271C160C@spike> References: <277E759FFDF94556BECE6946271C160C@spike> Message-ID: > ...On Behalf Of spike > ...There are still a few dragons guarding the holy grail of mathematizing biology... spike If we manage to mathematize biology, the progress we make in that field will completely blow our minds. If we get even one computer sim of even one single celled lifeform, that successfully makes actual correct predictions, it will fundamentally change the nature of that science, and every field of science eventually. We will soon recognize that the road to discovery in all of biology depends on writing a software simulation of that lifeform, then harnessing the enormous untapped potential of the world's unused idle computer cycles. Eventually we could perhaps simulate human tissue cells, then run a massively parallel computing effort to perhaps discover how to slow their decay with time, which would revolutionize medicine. Given several parallel efforts to sim the various kinds of cells in a multicell organism, and an enormous network of parallel computers donating idle cycles, perhaps we could model in software the interactions of cells, and discover new medications, ones that actually work, by randomly trying various molecules, running entirely on idle computer cycles. In that way, the development of computers would be a perfect example of evolutionary pre-adaptation. We are standing on the threshold of a dream. spike From max at maxmore.com Fri Oct 29 04:43:19 2010 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 23:43:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology Message-ID: <201010290510.o9T5A9c1018674@andromeda.ziaspace.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Oct 29 05:09:43 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 28 Oct 2010 22:09:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] holy grail, batman! computer sim of a cell In-Reply-To: References: <277E759FFDF94556BECE6946271C160C@spike> Message-ID: > > ...On Behalf Of spike > > > ...There are still a few dragons guarding the holy grail of > > mathematizing biology ... If we get even > one computer sim of even one single celled lifeform, that > successfully makes actual correct predictions, it will > fundamentally change the nature of that science, and every > field of science eventually... spike I need to make sure I don't shortchange this guy: although the sim isn't complete (and he isn't claiming that it is complete) they have used it already to make correct predictions. There is a process I understand whereby they can disable certain genes in an organism. Many genes in an organism don't do anything. Biology hipsters, when a specific gene is disabled, that is called a knockout, ja? He has a lab assistant doing knockouts, one gene at a time. Dr. Covert was using his sim to predict which of the knockouts would survive and which would perish. The sim was right about 86% of the time, but there were some cases which were in the gray area. For instance, he had one knockout his sim predicted would perish, but it lived. He counted that as an incorrect prediction. He and an assistant were watching the beast under a microscope and noted that "it was one weak, sick little bug." Afterwards I suggested to him that these kinds of findings are what might make his research Nobel prize material, for weak sick little bugs are what one needs to make safer vaccines. spike From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Oct 29 11:06:55 2010 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 07:06:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: <201010290510.o9T5A9c1018674@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201010290510.o9T5A9c1018674@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <60c66577ec8c36e2754aba50d4b699d3.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> It showed up in World Science also... > > * "Liberal gene" identified: > > People with a specific gene variant tend to > develop into liberals if they also have many > friends as teenagers, a study suggests. > > http://www.world-science.net/othernews/101028_liberal > Regards, MB From mbb386 at main.nc.us Fri Oct 29 11:47:38 2010 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 07:47:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: <60c66577ec8c36e2754aba50d4b699d3.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <201010290510.o9T5A9c1018674@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <60c66577ec8c36e2754aba50d4b699d3.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <5a6dd73c7bbbdf924abe069a3794020d.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> ... it's in Science Daily also: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027161452.htm Researchers Find a 'Liberal Gene' Regards, MB From bbenzai at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 13:34:22 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:34:22 +0100 (BST) Subject: [ExI] Uploading In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <98850.30047.qm@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Alan Grimes wrote: I wrote: >> You've just described one uploading scenario! > >No. > >I haven't. > >Uploading is very strictly defined as ... Uploading is not strictly defined at all. You seem to have a fixed idea of what the word should mean, but that idea is not shared by everyone. >Nobody, anywhere, thinks of a situation involving an > AI substrate and a >neural interface when someone mentions uploading. That is factually wrong, since one of the several uploading scenarios that I think of includes that one, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Uploading just means the process of copying one's mind from the biological brain into an artificial one. No specific mechanism is implied, as we don't yet know which mechanisms will actually work. It's certainly not exclusive of any physically possible mechanism. >Uploading == destructive brain uploading with full > brain emulation and >*NOTHING* else. Why be so restrictive in your definition? There's no need. You call me an 'uploader' (although I'm not, yet!), and by implication stigmatise me with your personal, idiosyncratic definition of the word Upload, when in fact I'm open to many other types of uploading, including the one that you propose. Which I think is a very good idea, btw. >What you are doing is attempting to co-opt me and the > movement I want to >create to provide an alternative to uploading Not at all. Just attempting to clarify that what you propose is a form of uploading. You say: "I would imagine having a network of mind-hosts, each hosting k/N of my consciousness" So you do think that a non-biological substrate can implement a mind, just as I do. The fact that you refuse to call all but one particular route to that state 'uploading', just means we are arguing about the definition of a word, not the phenomenon itself. If you reside in a non-biological brain, you are an upload (assuming you used to be biological of course!). Call it something else, if you have an allergy to the word, but try to recognise that we are after the same thing: Our mind running in an alternative, and better, substrate. Of course, an inevitable corollary to that is the improvement you mention, something that would be much easier to achieve in a non-biological brain. > -- and > that pisses me off, That is your privilege. > Uploading is > uploading. Using a Cray >XE6 as extra gray matter is not. (OMG: 1 million core > scalability!!!) OK, you seem adamant in your dislike of the word "uploading". What word do you want to use instead? Let's use that. >> While our minds are still implemented in meat, > there's little >> chance of being able to improve them in any > significant way. > >Sure they are. If you don't insist on carrying your > brain around with >you, it's perfectly reasonable that it could be > expanded biologically. >Advanced CMT would also serve as a mostly biological > enhancement. >Additionally one could consider merging several > bio-brains together. CMT? Do you mean nanotech? I expect that nanotechnology will eventually provide a way to create advanced materials that are non-biological but at least as complex and varied as biology, but staying within the realm of biology is not much use if you want to expand your intelligence a millionfold. For a start, nerve impulses are far too slow. I doubt anyone would take Olaf Stapledon's giant brains seriously as a practical option these days. Besides, biology carries a huge amount of evolutionary baggage. It would be silly to keep all the tangled, enormously complex biochemistry that goes on in neurons (not to mention all the genes that are never used) when all you're really interested in is their signal-processing properties. Yes, I know that's a gross simplification, but you get the point. No need to keep all that genetic information about how to make liver cells, etc., etc., when all you want is neurons. >I'm terrified that all these myopic, dim-witted, > backwards thinking, >idiotic, suicidal, uploaders will rule the world and > vastly superior >approaches will be precluded before they can be put in > place. =( You really don't like that word, do you? Ben Zaiboc From bbenzai at yahoo.com Fri Oct 29 13:49:46 2010 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:49:46 +0100 (BST) Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <106902.60525.qm@web114411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> "MB" wrote: > ... it's in Science Daily also: > > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027161452.htm > > Researchers Find a 'Liberal Gene' Why is it called a 'Liberal Gene', and not a 'Conservative Gene'? Or a 'Politics Gene', with Liberal and Conservative alleles?? Ben Zaiboc From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 29 14:47:11 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 09:47:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wind Power Without the Blades Message-ID: <4CCADE6F.30603@satx.rr.com> By Alyssa Danigelis Noise from wind turbine blades, inadvertent bat and bird kills and even the way wind turbines look have made installing them anything but a breeze. New York design firm Atelier DNA has an alternative concept that ditches blades in favor of stalks. Resembling thin cattails, the Windstalks generate electricity when the wind sets them waving. The designers came up with the idea for the planned city Masdar, a 2.3-square-mile, automobile-free area being built outside of Abu Dhabi. [etc, including visualizations] From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Oct 29 14:30:46 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 10:30:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> Damien let me ask you something, suppose you were imprisoned in a deep dark dungeon and were told that like it or not tomorrow you would be thrown into the scanning chamber and duplicated and the copy would be horribly tortured, but immediately after the copying the original would receive a full pardon and get to go home. Leaving aside the question of empathy would you be nervous knowing what was going to happen tomorrow or happy at going free? I'd be nervous as hell! I'd rather just stay in the dungeon. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rpwl at lightlink.com Fri Oct 29 15:10:16 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 11:10:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CCAE3D8.4020309@lightlink.com> John Clark wrote: > Damien let me ask you something, suppose you were imprisoned in a deep > dark dungeon and were told that like it or not tomorrow you would be > thrown into the scanning chamber and duplicated and the copy would be > horribly tortured, but immediately after the copying the original would > receive a full pardon and get to go home. Leaving aside the question of > empathy would you be nervous knowing what was going to happen tomorrow > or happy at going free? I'd be nervous as hell! I'd rather just stay in > the dungeon. You can only get over the problem when you understand that your nervousness is caused by the fact that your concept of "you" and "continuity of self" is broken. That is why you find this situation so frightening. If you tried the experiment, one of you would wake up and say "phew!" and the other would wake up and say "uh oh!". The question "But which one of those would *I* be?" is strictly meaningless. It is opening and closing your mouth without saying anything. This is a double-slit experiment, but even after the quantum mechanics has been made clear to you, you are still insisting on the question "But which of the two slits did the electron *actually* go through?" Richard Loosemore From spike66 at att.net Fri Oct 29 15:10:11 2010 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 08:10:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: <106902.60525.qm@web114411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <106902.60525.qm@web114411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <0EDEC453644D4729A312DE30C7E20583@spike> > ...On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc ... > http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2010/10/101027161452.htm > > > > Researchers Find a 'Liberal Gene' > > Why is it called a 'Liberal Gene', and not a 'Conservative Gene'? > > Or a 'Politics Gene', with Liberal and Conservative alleles?? > > Ben Zaiboc Ja I felt a little slighted by that too. Where's the libertarian gene? Shouldn't there be a capitalist gene? I think they took undue liberties in naming it. I wouldn't be surprised if it started as kind of an inside joke, like calling cosmological inflation theories "big bang" but the name stuck. spike From pharos at gmail.com Fri Oct 29 16:06:22 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:06:22 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Physics versus psychology In-Reply-To: <0EDEC453644D4729A312DE30C7E20583@spike> References: <106902.60525.qm@web114411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <0EDEC453644D4729A312DE30C7E20583@spike> Message-ID: On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 4:10 PM, spike wrote: > Ja I felt a little slighted by that too. ?Where's the libertarian gene? > Shouldn't there be a capitalist gene? ?I think they took undue liberties in > naming it. ?I wouldn't be surprised if it started as kind of an inside joke, > like calling cosmological inflation theories "big bang" but the name stuck. > > One of these nit-picking scientist types has spoiled all the fun, But there are loads of nice 'science' jokes int he comments. :) Quotes: As is often the way, this is not a straight nature-and-nurture divide: people genetically predisposed by the DRD4-7R variant to seek out novelty will tend (statistically) to have more varied friends, and people who have more and more varied circles of friends tend to be more liberal politically. It is a complex interplay of genes and environment, as it always is. Geneticists are always wary of the phrase ?the gene for? in relation to a complex behavioural trait. Further, it?s not a large effect. ?While our finding is statistically significant, the strength of the association is quite small?, warn the researchers: thousands of other factors, genetic and environmental, will also play a part. ------------------ And: Doctors have said that at some point in the near future testing can be done on a fetus to alert parents if their child is a carrier. Liberal politicians worry that testing children in the womb for the liberal gene may result in a decrease of their voter base through an increase of abortions of liberal babies. Democrats in Congress are taking steps to pre-emptively outlaw abortion nationwide. -------------------------- Two hydrogen atoms walk into a bar. One says, "I think I've lost an electron." The other says, "Are you sure?" The first replies, "Yes, I'm positive". BillK From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Oct 29 16:49:45 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:49:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CCAE3D8.4020309@lightlink.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> <4CCAE3D8.4020309@lightlink.com> Message-ID: On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote: > John Clark wrote: >> Damien let me ask you something, suppose you were imprisoned in a deep dark dungeon and were told that like it or not tomorrow you would be thrown into the scanning chamber and duplicated and the copy would be horribly tortured, but immediately after the copying the original would receive a full pardon and get to go home. Leaving aside the question of empathy would you be nervous knowing what was going to happen tomorrow or happy at going free? I'd be nervous as hell! I'd rather just stay in the dungeon. > > You can only get over the problem when you understand that your nervousness is caused by the fact that your concept of "you" and "continuity of self" is broken. I don't see anything in my thought experiment that gets broken, except perhaps for the kneecaps of one of them; and I don't understand this obsession with continuity so many around here have, and I don't even know what "continuity of self" is supposed to mean or why I should give a damn about it. > That is why you find this situation so frightening. My question was do YOU find it frightening, I did not receive an answer. > If you tried the experiment, one of you would wake up and say "phew!" and the other would wake up and say "uh oh!". Yes. > The question "But which one of those would *I* be?" is strictly meaningless. No, it is not meaningless and the answer is obvious; both of the two would be you but neither of the two would be each other. There would be a branching, both would have an identical past but a very different future. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Oct 29 17:18:20 2010 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:18:20 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> <4CCAE3D8.4020309@lightlink.com> Message-ID: 2010/10/29 John Clark wrote: > No, it is not meaningless and the answer is obvious; both of the two would > be you but neither of the two would be each other. There would be a > branching, both would have an identical past but a very different future. > > For a moment I almost agreed with this, but then I'm not feeling myself today. :) BillK From rpwl at lightlink.com Fri Oct 29 17:20:19 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:20:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Liberal gene? [WAS Re: Physics versus psychology] In-Reply-To: References: <106902.60525.qm@web114411.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <0EDEC453644D4729A312DE30C7E20583@spike> Message-ID: <4CCB0253.9010201@lightlink.com> BillK wrote: > One of these nit-picking scientist types has spoiled all the fun, But > there are loads of nice 'science' jokes int he comments. :) > > > > Quotes: > [snip] > Doctors have said that at some point in the near future testing can be > done on a fetus to alert parents if their child is a carrier. Liberal > politicians worry that testing children in the womb for the liberal > gene may result in a decrease of their voter base through an increase > of abortions of liberal babies. Democrats in Congress are taking steps > to pre-emptively outlaw abortion nationwide. The funny part is, that the best explanation for how this "novelty-seeking" gene actually causes a tendency to be "Liberal", is via a predisposition to be exploratory, fact-gathering, observant, intelligent, open to a broad range of ideas, etc etc etc. It's not looking good for the folks who lack DRD4-7R... :-) Richard Loosemore From giulio at gmail.com Fri Oct 29 16:28:51 2010 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 18:28:51 +0200 Subject: [ExI] TransVision 2010, October 22-24, 2010 - All videos recorded from Teleplace are online Message-ID: TransVision 2010, October 22-24, 2010 - All videos recorded from Teleplace are online http://telexlr8.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/transvision-2010-october-22-24-2010/ On Thu, Oct 28, 2010 at 8:04 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > TransVision 2010, October 22-24, 2010 - First videos online > http://telexlr8.wordpress.com/2010/10/25/transvision-2010-october-22-24-2010/ > > We have uploaded the first bunch of videos taken from Teleplace. We > will upload the rest within a couple of days. We have also started > uploading the full collection of HD videos taken in Milan, but > completing the collection will take a few weeks. > > G. > > On Tue, Oct 26, 2010 at 7:42 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: >> TransVision 2010, October 22-24, 2010 >> http://giulioprisco.blogspot.com/2010/10/transvision-2010-october-22-24-2010.html >> >> TransVision 2010 is over! I wish to thank all speakers and >> participants, those who came to Milan and those who participated >> remotely via Teleplace. Special thanks to Kim for her work at the main >> Teleplace workstation and for handling many technical problems, and to >> Cosimo and Jacopo for their work at the HD video camera. I wish to >> thank the volunteer Italian to English translator (I am not mentioning >> your name here because I guess you prefer it this way, but you know >> who you are and thank you so much), who gave also a great unscheduled >> presentation of the Polytopia Project. And of course I also want to >> thank Riccardo and Stefano for their support in organizing and running >> the conference. In particular Stefano should really have stayed at >> home to recover from recent surgery, but he made a special effort to >> be with us. >> >> In the first two pictures, Dan Massey and Max More giving their talks. >> In the foreground, the Terasem 1 O'Neill Island One Space Habitat, a >> Bernal sphere model built by Simon Deering for the Terasem Movement of >> Martine Rothblatt and presented at TV10 by Khannea Suntzu. The model >> is now on its way to Florida to be delivered to the Terasem Movement. >> We had many great talks, not only about visionary technologies but >> also about literature, politics, philosophy and art. The second half >> of the first day has been dedicated to Italian neo-Futurist literary >> and artistic movement, but strike neo- because Futurism is always Neo >> by definition. I have been disappointed by not seeing as many people >> as I hoped: I counted about 65 participants in Milan over 3 days >> including a dog. The problem is that participating in conferences >> costs money and time, and in my own presentation (which I shortened to >> less than ten minutes to make time for other speakers) I proposed >> online conferences 2.0 as a solution. >> >> We had about 30 remote participants in the in the TVirtual online >> extension of TransVision 2010, hosted by the teleXLR8 project based on >> the Teleplace online telepresence platform. Remote participants have >> been able to watch all talks in realtime, and interact with speakers >> and other participants. In the picture above, Max More's talk is shown >> to remote participants in Teleplace, and the virtual Teleplace >> conference hall is shown to the participants in Milan. We used two >> Teleplace workstations, one to stream the video and voice of the >> speaker and to interact with remote participants, and one to stream >> the speaker's slides. Lesson learned: if the text on the slides is >> small it is better to upload also the original .ppt or .pdf to >> Teleplace. We did this in realtime during the conference, but we >> should have done it in advance. For those speakers without >> presentations in .ppt or .pdf, we used the second Teleplace >> workstation to show the audience in Milan to the audience in >> Teleplace. >> >> In the afternoon of the second day we have reversed the procedure >> outlined above and shown remote talks from speakers in Teleplace to >> the audience in Milan. After great talks by Eugen Leitl and Robert >> Geraci, Natasha Vita-More started her talk (picture above)... but 20 >> minutes into Natasha's talk all the Internet connections in the >> conference hall in Milan died, perhaps due to overload caused by too >> many WiFi connections in parallel. The Internet servive provider's >> technicians could not fix the problem. The remote participants in >> Teleplace continued without us, and we have video recordings of the >> talks by remote speakers. However, all remote speakers have been >> invited to repeat their talks to the teleXLR8 community. >> >> In the morning of the third day, not only the Internet connections in >> the conference hall were still dead, but also the screen projection >> system was dead! I had a (very) heavy-handed "exchange of views" with >> the hotel's personnel (wife says I can be quite unpleasant on >> occasions), and the technical problems were fixed. >> >> This was a very interesting event, with great talks by great speakers. >> I am happy to have seen again many old friends and made many new ones. >> In the picture above, some speakers and participants at a dinner after >> the end of the conference. I was not really able to pay attention to >> any of the talks including my own, and I look forward to watching the >> video coverage. We recorded everything on video, both in HD with the >> cameras on site, and from Teleplace. The videos will be available >> online and on the conference's DVD proceedings. The videos recorded in >> Teleplace will be available online in a few days, and those recorded >> on site in a few weeks. >> >> I have started two blog posts as containers and index pages for >> material to be posted later. Both posts have the same title as this >> one. The post on the TransVision 2010 blog will have links to the HD >> videos recorded in Milan, and the post on the teleXLR8 blog will have >> links to the videos recorded in Teleplace. The Twitter feed created by >> participants at #TV2010 has the twitting history of the conference. >> > From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 29 17:24:05 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:24:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CCB0335.20403@satx.rr.com> On 10/29/2010 9:30 AM, John Clark wrote: > suppose you were imprisoned in a deep dark dungeon and were told that > like it or not tomorrow you would be thrown into the scanning chamber > and duplicated So I have no other option, except to try to kill myself, which I don't suppose I'd do just to spare some other guy just like me a dreadful fate--but I might if it was my wife who would be tortured if I were set free (SOPHIE'S CHOICE sort of thing). Weird, eh? (I guess those selfish genes just don't work right around duplicating machines.) > and the copy would be horribly tortured, but immediately > after the copying the original would receive a full pardon and get to go > home. Leaving aside the question of empathy would you be nervous knowing > what was going to happen tomorrow or happy at going free? Why would I be nervous? I'd feel sick with disgust at my psychotic captors and sorrow for my poor duplicate, though. Damien Broderick From rpwl at lightlink.com Fri Oct 29 17:31:53 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:31:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> <4CCAE3D8.4020309@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <4CCB0509.4080107@lightlink.com> John Clark wrote: > On Oct 29, 2010, at 11:10 AM, Richard Loosemore wrote: > >> John Clark wrote: >>> Damien let me ask you something, suppose you were imprisoned in a >>> deep dark dungeon and were told that like it or not tomorrow you >>> would be thrown into the scanning chamber and duplicated and the copy >>> would be horribly tortured, but immediately after the copying the >>> original would receive a full pardon and get to go home. Leaving >>> aside the question of empathy would you be nervous knowing what was >>> going to happen tomorrow or happy at going free? I'd be nervous as >>> hell! I'd rather just stay in the dungeon. >> >> You can only get over the problem when you understand that your >> nervousness is caused by the fact that your concept of "you" and >> "continuity of self" is broken. > > I don't see anything in my thought experiment that gets broken, except > perhaps for the kneecaps of one of them; and I don't understand this > obsession with continuity so many around here have, and I don't even > know what "continuity of self" is supposed to mean or why I should give > a damn about it. No, of course you don't. There is an *implicit* assumption about continuity contained in your suggestion that the source person should be afraid. >> That is why you find this situation so frightening. > > My question was do YOU find it frightening, I did not receive an answer. I answered you: the question is meaningless. There is no reason to be either afraid or not afraid. Two people will be created where there was one before. One of them will experience something horrible. One of them will say "Phew, after all that worry, I turned out to be the one who didn't get tortured!" and one of them will say "Godammit, I *knew* I would end up being the one who go the rough end of the deal!" ..... and both statements will actually mean nothing in the context of your question. You are asking a "Have you stopped beating your wife?" question. >> If you tried the experiment, one of you would wake up and say "phew!" >> and the other would wake up and say "uh oh!". > > Yes. > >> The question "But which one of those would *I* be?" is strictly >> meaningless. > > No, it is not meaningless and the answer is obvious; both of the two > would be you but neither of the two would be each other. There would be > a branching, both would have an identical past but a very different > future. Of course! That is what *I* am saying! The fact that both of them would be "me" has got no bearing on your question, which (as I explained) is a meaningless question. One of the two future people should be afraid, and one should not. But that is a stupid statement because before the duplication NEITHER of those future entities exist. Richard Loosemore From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Oct 29 17:46:11 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:46:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CCB0335.20403@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> <4CCB0335.20403@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <1F330352-A77B-4A8B-A04D-108573618CE3@bellsouth.net> On Oct 29, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > Why would I be nervous? I'd feel sick with disgust at my psychotic captors and sorrow for my poor duplicate, though. So the one thing the duplication process cannot duplicate is your soul, thus your soul will always stick to the original (even though none of the atoms are original), and your soul will not go to the copy so you NEVER identify with the copy; even though the copy most certainly identifies with you. I disagree, I don't believe in the soul. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Fri Oct 29 17:38:28 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 13:38:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Uploading. In-Reply-To: <4CCA1214.8060806@speakeasy.net> References: <483394.79931.qm@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> <4CCA1214.8060806@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <88A7D2BA-DB07-4992-9BB9-50334BBF503B@bellsouth.net> On Oct 28, 2010, at 8:15 PM, Alan Grimes wrote: > Uploading == destructive brain uploading with full brain emulation and *NOTHING* else. Exactly what is being destroyed in this destructive process? It's not the atoms, and its not the relationship the atoms have with each other because obtaining that information is the entire point of the scanning process, so it must be something else that gets destroyed. There is a word for that "something else", but you'd probably prefer not to use it and invent some gobbledegook that sounds scientific to express the same idea instead. Some primitive tribes refused to let you take their picture because they thought it would steal their soul, I don't think they were correct either. > > Take the brain of an accident victim or something and upload it for the sake of > science. I'd be willing to treat such a being as a person but it's not the accident victim, it's a robot You believe that unlike you the upload is just a robot because you have something the robot is lacking, something of enormous importance that nevertheless for some reason the scientific method is totally unable to detect. Well, all I can say is that I disagree, and as I said before I really don't think having your picture taken will diminish your consciousness. > > The networked consciousness approach is a quantum leap over stupid, backwards, uploading. A quantum leap? A improvement that small wouldn't be worth doing; a quantum leap is the smallest change the scientific method is capable of detecting. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 29 17:54:55 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 12:54:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CCB0509.4080107@lightlink.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> <4CCAE3D8.4020309@lightlink.com> <4CCB0509.4080107@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <4CCB0A6F.3090707@satx.rr.com> On 10/29/2010 12:31 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: > One of the two future people should be afraid, and one should not. But > that is a stupid statement because before the duplication NEITHER of > those future entities exist. Not so. John explicitly stated that the original would be set free, and asked how the original would feel about the prospect of his duplicate being tormented. Since I am the original prior to any duplicating, I know I'm safe if the psychopaths keep their promise, which seems unlikely). What happens in the consciousness of the duplicate *after he is created* is a different matter, because the poor bastard will remember everything I do. Damien Broderick From rpwl at lightlink.com Fri Oct 29 18:43:26 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:43:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CCB0A6F.3090707@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> <4CCAE3D8.4020309@lightlink.com> <4CCB0509.4080107@lightlink.com> <4CCB0A6F.3090707@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CCB15CE.1050205@lightlink.com> Damien Broderick wrote: > On 10/29/2010 12:31 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: > >> One of the two future people should be afraid, and one should not. But >> that is a stupid statement because before the duplication NEITHER of >> those future entities exist. > > Not so. John explicitly stated that the original would be set free, and > asked how the original would feel about the prospect of his duplicate > being tormented. Since I am the original prior to any duplicating, I > know I'm safe if the psychopaths keep their promise, which seems > unlikely). What happens in the consciousness of the duplicate *after he > is created* is a different matter, because the poor bastard will > remember everything I do. But that interpretation implies an asymmetry between the two people, which (as I will explain below) is impossible to enforce when the question is being addressed, before the operation. Thus: After the duplication, the original would think to himself "Poor bastard, but at least I get to go free". The duplicate will wake up and say "WAIT! What happened?!!! You said the original would be okay!" These two will be functionally identical. Each will claim to be the original, though one will have physical evidence that he woke up in the wrong place. The problem, of course, is John Clark's nasty little question about what the *prior* version should or should not be afraid of. The prior version is the exact basis for both the continuation AND the duplicate, so if the prior version thinks smugly "Well, it's okay, because HE is going to get shafted, but since I'm the original I'm going to be okay......" then this thought is, strictly speaking, meaningless. The thought will be stored in both versions after the operation. So if we answer the question either way ("Yes, I am afraid" or "No, I am not afraid because I am the original") this answer will imply something about which direction the original person is "in actual fact" going. There is just no meaning to the idea that the person before the operation is "in actual fact" going in one direction or another. ********* Sidebar: This rests on the fact that if you strip away everything physical from the thing that is a person, it is only the functionality that matters. Our physical aspect gets stripped away and totally replaced, atom by atom, every few years. Nobody ever complains that "Oh my god I am going to die in a few years because all my atoms will be different by then!!" -- we all consider functional continuity to be the absolute arbiter of who we are. Both the original and the duplicate, in John Clark's scenario, have 100% of the functional continuity. It is just that one of them (the copy) has the same kind of discontinuity that is experienced by all of us after a few years' waiting, but compressed into one microsecond. If it does not make any difference to us when we wait for a few years to get the normal physical replacement, how can physical replacement have a different significance in this case? ********* Hey, here is the right analogy to convey the message. In Heinlein's "Door into Summer" Dan is talking to his buddy Chuck about the time machine that Chuck knows about. Chuck explains that there is a problem with time travel, because the machine sends one of its two loads forward in time, and one backward, and there is no way to tell which one will go which way. He says "Nobody knows which way to orient the kinkin' thing! Tell me: which direction is next week? Go ahead, point to it!" I say, before the operation, "Tell me which direction is this 'Original Me' that is going to be okay?" There is no way to do that because before the operation every attempt to point to the original will ALSO point to the copy of me. Richard Loosemore From timhalterman at gmail.com Fri Oct 29 19:09:26 2010 From: timhalterman at gmail.com (Tim Halterman) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 14:09:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CCB15CE.1050205@lightlink.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> <4CCAE3D8.4020309@lightlink.com> <4CCB0509.4080107@lightlink.com> <4CCB0A6F.3090707@satx.rr.com> <4CCB15CE.1050205@lightlink.com> Message-ID: > > These two will be functionally identical. Each will claim to be the > original, though one will have physical evidence that he woke up in the > wrong place. > Sidebar: > > This rests on the fact that if you strip away everything physical from the > thing that is a person, it is only the functionality that matters. Our > physical aspect gets stripped away and totally replaced, atom by atom, every > few years. Nobody ever complains that "Oh my god I am going to die in a few > years because all my atoms will be different by then!!" -- we all consider > functional continuity to be the absolute arbiter of who we are. > > Both the original and the duplicate, in John Clark's scenario, have 100% of > the functional continuity. It is just that one of them (the copy) has the > same kind of discontinuity that is experienced by all of us after a few > years' waiting, but compressed into one microsecond. If it does not make > any difference to us when we wait for a few years to get the normal physical > replacement, how can physical replacement have a different significance in > this case? > > ********* > > Hey, here is the right analogy to convey the message. In Heinlein's "Door > into Summer" Dan is talking to his buddy Chuck about the time machine that > Chuck knows about. Chuck explains that there is a problem with time travel, > because the machine sends one of its two loads forward in time, and one > backward, and there is no way to tell which one will go which way. He says > "Nobody knows which way to orient the kinkin' thing! Tell me: which > direction is next week? Go ahead, point to it!" > > I say, before the operation, "Tell me which direction is this 'Original Me' > that is going to be okay?" There is no way to do that because before the > operation every attempt to point to the original will ALSO point to the copy > of me. > > > > Richard Loosemore > > I dropped off this conversation much earlier due to the inability to get my point across to John but I'd like to say your comment about both claiming to be the original totally depends on the person who just underwent the process. If I had undergone this, both would say, neither of us are the original. Who I am is only a snapshot of that matter at that time in that space and who I am now did not exist then and will not exist a moment from now. Tim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Fri Oct 29 21:06:22 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 16:06:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CCB15CE.1050205@lightlink.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> <4CCAE3D8.4020309@lightlink.com> <4CCB0509.4080107@lightlink.com> <4CCB0A6F.3090707@satx.rr.com> <4CCB15CE.1050205@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <4CCB374E.3090905@satx.rr.com> On 10/29/2010 1:43 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: >> Since I am the original prior to any duplicating, I know I'm safe i > But that interpretation implies an asymmetry between the two people, Of course there's an asymmetry. Sometimes it is an asymmetry observable only by others, but so what? If the original remains awake during the operation, he can be in absolutely no doubt that he is the original. The duplicate *must* be in doubt, because his situation is radically discontinuous in ways the original's isn't. The situation reminds me a bit of the asymmetry in special relativity, where the twin remaining on earth objectivity ages faster than the twin in the starship, because the starship underwent an acceleration, a discontinuous change of state. > After the duplication, the original would think to himself "Poor > bastard, but at least I get to go free". He would be right. > The duplicate will wake up and say "WAIT! What happened?!!! You said > the original would be okay!" But then after a moment's thought, and a look around to see that he is in the compilation vat or receiving platform (or on the Moon, as in Budry's great novel ROGUE MOON) he'll realize he's mistaken. > These two will be functionally identical. Yes. > Each will claim to be the > original, though one will have physical evidence that he woke up in the > wrong place. Untrue. The twin in the starship might feel no different from the twin back on earth, but a look at his circumstances will quickly set him straight (if he's honest). > The thought will be stored in both versions after the operation. Indeed, which will raise interesting issues for therapists, but in one case this thought will be recognized as an error. *This has nothing to do with whether the copy IS NOW (for a moment) an exact duplicate, another "you", etc*. His history is different, and this can be proved using instruments, appeals to witnesses, etc. Damien Broderick From agrimes at speakeasy.net Fri Oct 29 21:21:15 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:21:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Flash of insight... Message-ID: <4CCB3ACB.8000106@speakeasy.net> We are all so comfortable in our own skins (in theory at least), that we might all be missing a truly shocking revelation. I mean think about it, if you were born with some kind of color blindness, so you had trouble with the concepts of red and green because they both looked yellow. Otherwise you would be entirely unaware of it. Or night blindness, you might think that you simply can't see at night because it's dark not because you have defective rod-receptors unless you were tested for the condition. >From all these descriptions it finally dawned upon me that we might be seeing the same phenomenon here! We each have a perception of our own consciousness but these perceptions might be radically different in ways for which there are no words and in such a way that affects practically nothing but how we perceive uploading. Short of getting into DSM-IV definitions, what is it like to be you? My own experience is a fairly fluid stream of consciousness which operates at all waking hours, and even disrupts my sleep as it did last night, too much on my mind! =P I have a fairly strong sense of mind-body integration. I never feel that my limbs belong to someone else. I'm able to divide my attention several ways but can only really work at one thing at a time. I'm not sure what else would be relevant to add, perhaps it will come out in discussion. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From agrimes at speakeasy.net Fri Oct 29 21:24:58 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 17:24:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Uploading In-Reply-To: <98850.30047.qm@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> References: <98850.30047.qm@web114415.mail.gq1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <4CCB3BAA.2070201@speakeasy.net> chrome://messenger/locale/messengercompose/composeMsgs.properties: Since you seem fairly sympathetic to my position, I'll try to keep a friendlier tone than I usually do, chrome://messenger. Nevertheless I have a few points to make and I don't mince words as a point of policy. Please take my comments only as trying to argue a point, not against you personally. .... >> Uploading is very strictly defined as ... > Uploading is not strictly defined at all. > You seem to have a fixed idea of what the word > should mean, but that idea is not shared by everyone. Please look at the last 100 posts on this list that weren't written by me. Of the ones that argue some point related to uploading, How many suggest any kind of gradual transfer where the original is maintained both intact and as a part of the evolving mind? >> Nobody, anywhere, thinks of a situation involving an >> AI substrate and a >> neural interface when someone mentions uploading. > That is factually wrong, since one of the several > uploading scenarios that I think of includes that > one, and I'm sure I'm not alone. Quite true, but which of those "several uploading scenarios" inspires the most prose? Are the other approaches even discussed anywhere? > Uploading just means the process of copying one's mind > from the biological brain into an artificial one. > No specific mechanism is implied, as we don't yet know > which mechanisms will actually work. It's certainly > not exclusive of any physically possible mechanism. What I'm discussing is more of an inch-worm process, not a copying process. So yes my approach is clearly distinct from any approach involving copying. >> Uploading == destructive brain uploading with full >> brain emulation and >> *NOTHING* else. > Why be so restrictive in your definition? There's no > need. I'm afraid that there is. I need a term that clearly doesn't mean destructive brain uploading. > You call me an 'uploader' (although I'm not, yet!), > and by implication stigmatise me with your personal, > idiosyncratic definition of the word Upload, when in > fact I'm open to many other types of uploading, > including the one that you propose. Which I think is > a very good idea, btw. Thanks... I'll also happily obsolete some of the things I've said about you. >> Uploading is uploading. Using a Cray >> XE6 as extra gray matter is not. (OMG: 1 million core >> scalability!!!) > OK, you seem adamant in your dislike of the word > "uploading". > What word do you want to use instead? > Let's use that. A person on Orkut coined the term "Meta Brain Growth Transhumanism" but that doesn't really roll off the tongue... >> Sure they are. If you don't insist on carrying your >> brain around with >> you, it's perfectly reasonable that it could be >> expanded biologically. >> Advanced CMT would also serve as a mostly biological >> enhancement. >> Additionally one could consider merging several >> bio-brains together. > CMT? I planted that there to see if you were familiar with it. ;) CMT = Computer Mediated Telepathy. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From rpwl at lightlink.com Sat Oct 30 01:16:15 2010 From: rpwl at lightlink.com (Richard Loosemore) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:16:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CCB374E.3090905@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> <4CCAE3D8.4020309@lightlink.com> <4CCB0509.4080107@lightlink.com> <4CCB0A6F.3090707@satx.rr.com> <4CCB15CE.1050205@lightlink.com> <4CCB374E.3090905@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CCB71DF.6010307@lightlink.com> Unfortunately my last reply contained the crucial point toward the end, with supporting material at the front. That left a lot of targets for you to knock down without really zooming in on what I was trying to claim. (So I won't defend against any of your points because they are valid enough when removed from the context of my final line). Remember that the question is only about whether the person before the operation should feel afraid. ************ That person should NOT feel afraid if they are going to be the one that is not the duplicate. But before the operation, there is not a single aspect of the person that you can point to and say "This aspect of the person is going to remain as the original" EXCEPT the physical aspects. (This is the CRUCIAL point). So any attempt to point to something and say "This is the real me that is going to continue on and remain the original" will founder, unless the pointing is a pointing at something physical. But there are a thousand games we can play to make those physical aspects irrelevant to "personhood", and in the limit as those games become more comprehensive, the level of personhood continuity stays the same, at 100% original. Then, finally, when the games are pushed to the limit itself there is a sudden switch and some people would say that the personhood continuity suddenly comes down to zero (they would say "Ah, that is no longer the original, that is a copy"). The games start innocently enough: 1) The end of one of my fingernails is actually on the duplicate person, after the operation. (Who cares? Me as a person, I am still 100% the original me). 2) All of my arms and legs are transferred to the copy, with me getting new ones. (Who cares? ..... ditto). 3) Some of my neurons are replaced by new neurons that function exactly the same as the originals are rapidly transported across the to copy. (ditto). 4) Some of my neurons are replaced by synthetic copies that function exactly as same and the originals are rapidly transported across the to copy. (ditto). 5) Unbeknowst to both of them, the original and the copy are placed in identical, featureless rooms, so when they both wake up (or when the instantaneous operation happens, if that is the way it is done), the first thing they say is "Thank god! Nothing happened, so I must be the original!". 6) Same as 5, but the original is told that both will seem to be in the original room after the operation. Then, the first thing both will say is "Am I the original?". 7) Same as 6, but after the operation the two of them will never be told which one is the original and which is the (we will assume) atomically perfect copy. Instead, the sadistic torturers tell them that foir the rest of their lives neither will be told which is the original, except that on some randomly chosen future day the copy will suddenly be picked up and taken to the torture chamber. (Now both of them live in equal fear). 8) Exactly 49.999% of my neurons are transferred to the copy, while the remainder stay put. The ones that are replaced are (of course) perfect, functionally identical new neurons. 9) ALL of my neurons are transferred to the copy and replaced by functional duplicates (with such a perfect continuity of signals that no glitch is observed by the original), with all of them being moved to the copy's new brain cavity. 10) All of me (... why not take all of me?...) is taken in an instant and transferred to the duplicate's body and brain, except for one remaining tip of one fingernail, which stays in the original location. ************ Question: in how many of these cases is it clear that the original SELF of that person (not the original body, but the original self) is in one place, while the duplicate self is in the other place? In the scenario as described by John Clark, you maintain that the original is clearly in the original body and somebody else comes into existence. But is it possible to make that same declaration in all of these intermediate cases? ... because it looks to me like we could make a complete continuum of cases from the original case all the way across to my case 10, which looks exactly like case 1, but reversed. If we can make that continuum of cases, and if one end of the continuum is interpreted one way, but the other end is interpreted the opposite way, at which point did a flipover occur (and why)? ************ This is an old version of the argument (first time I read it was in the replies to Searle, but I recall it being a staple of philosophy discussions long before that). The point of it is that different people choose different points at which to get leary about which one is the real them and which is the copy. And in the end, the decision about which one is the continuously connected original turns out to be decided by fiat: people usually just declare that there is a line beyond which the original stays or moves. Richard Loosemore Damien Broderick wrote: > On 10/29/2010 1:43 PM, Richard Loosemore wrote: > >>> Since I am the original prior to any duplicating, I know I'm safe i > >> But that interpretation implies an asymmetry between the two people, > > Of course there's an asymmetry. Sometimes it is an asymmetry observable > only by others, but so what? If the original remains awake during the > operation, he can be in absolutely no doubt that he is the original. The > duplicate *must* be in doubt, because his situation is radically > discontinuous in ways the original's isn't. > > The situation reminds me a bit of the asymmetry in special relativity, > where the twin remaining on earth objectivity ages faster than the twin > in the starship, because the starship underwent an acceleration, a > discontinuous change of state. > >> After the duplication, the original would think to himself "Poor >> bastard, but at least I get to go free". > > He would be right. > >> The duplicate will wake up and say "WAIT! What happened?!!! You said >> the original would be okay!" > > But then after a moment's thought, and a look around to see that he is > in the compilation vat or receiving platform (or on the Moon, as in > Budry's great novel ROGUE MOON) he'll realize he's mistaken. > >> These two will be functionally identical. > > Yes. > >> Each will claim to be the >> original, though one will have physical evidence that he woke up in the >> wrong place. > > Untrue. The twin in the starship might feel no different from the twin > back on earth, but a look at his circumstances will quickly set him > straight (if he's honest). > >> The thought will be stored in both versions after the operation. > > Indeed, which will raise interesting issues for therapists, but in one > case this thought will be recognized as an error. > > *This has nothing to do with whether the copy IS NOW (for a moment) an > exact duplicate, another "you", etc*. His history is different, and this > can be proved using instruments, appeals to witnesses, etc. > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Oct 30 00:54:30 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 02:54:30 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Quantum Homeopathy? In-Reply-To: <680014.10751.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> References: <680014.10751.qm@web65612.mail.ac4.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 26 October 2010 01:50, The Avantguardian wrote: > Thus it is statistically highly unlikely that even a single molecule of > histamine was actually applied to the cells. Yet three independent > laboratories > measured statistically significant results. Could this be some sort of > quantum > phenomenon where the histamine molecules became entagled with the water > molecules and were simultaneously present *and* not present in the > solution? I > Why histamine molecules would not be equally entangled with pure water where no dilution has ever occurred in the first place? And what means "ever" in this context, since all water and its components are likely to have been sooner or later in some chemical or physical connection with other molecules in their atomic history? -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Oct 30 01:44:18 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:44:18 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <1F330352-A77B-4A8B-A04D-108573618CE3@bellsouth.net> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> <4CCB0335.20403@satx.rr.com> <1F330352-A77B-4A8B-A04D-108573618CE3@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/30 John Clark : > On Oct 29, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > Why would I be nervous? I'd feel sick with disgust at my psychotic captors > and sorrow for my poor duplicate, though. > > So the one thing the duplication process cannot duplicate is your soul, thus > your soul will always stick to the original (even though none of the atoms > are original), and your soul will not go to the copy so you NEVER identify > with the copy; even though the copy most certainly identifies with you. I > disagree, I don't believe in the soul. The soul/identity/consciousness/esssence is transferred in the course of normal physiological replacement of the brain, but not if the replacement occurs artificially. I have never seen in any of these threads an attempt at an explanation of this mysterious process. -- Stathis Papaioannou From stathisp at gmail.com Sat Oct 30 02:01:51 2010 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 13:01:51 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CCB374E.3090905@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> <4CCAE3D8.4020309@lightlink.com> <4CCB0509.4080107@lightlink.com> <4CCB0A6F.3090707@satx.rr.com> <4CCB15CE.1050205@lightlink.com> <4CCB374E.3090905@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 8:06 AM, Damien Broderick wrote: > But then after a moment's thought, and a look around to see that he is in > the compilation vat or receiving platform (or on the Moon, as in Budry's > great novel ROGUE MOON) he'll realize he's mistaken. He'll realise that he's mistaken about being the original, and then he'll realise something else: that he was mistaken in assuming that his identity transfers to the original and not the copy. -- Stathis Papaioannou From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Oct 30 02:10:22 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:10:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> <4CCB0335.20403@satx.rr.com> <1F330352-A77B-4A8B-A04D-108573618CE3@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CCB7E8E.2060804@satx.rr.com> On 10/29/2010 8:44 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > The soul/identity/consciousness/esssence is transferred in the course > of normal physiological replacement of the brain, but not if the > replacement occurs artificially. I have never seen in any of these > threads an attempt at an explanation of this mysterious process. God moves in mysterious ways, and will not be mocked! Beware! From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Oct 30 02:15:19 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Fri, 29 Oct 2010 21:15:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> <4CCAE3D8.4020309@lightlink.com> <4CCB0509.4080107@lightlink.com> <4CCB0A6F.3090707@satx.rr.com> <4CCB15CE.1050205@lightlink.com> <4CCB374E.3090905@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <4CCB7FB7.7030109@satx.rr.com> On 10/29/2010 9:01 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: >> But then after a moment's thought, and a look around to see that he is in >> > the compilation vat or receiving platform (or on the Moon, as in Budry's >> > great novel ROGUE MOON) he'll realize he's mistaken. > > He'll realise that he's mistaken about being the original, and then > he'll realise something else: that he was mistaken in assuming that > his identity transfers to the original and not the copy. No, it never crossed anyone's mind to doubt that, certainly not his. Damien Broderick From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Oct 30 11:02:05 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 13:02:05 +0200 Subject: [ExI] No link between original and copy? Denied! In-Reply-To: <4CC97FB3.4090409@lightlink.com> References: <4CC8CEBF.3010701@speakeasy.net> <4CC97FB3.4090409@lightlink.com> Message-ID: On 28 October 2010 15:50, Richard Loosemore wrote: > If you insist on using your above phrasing to describe this case (You said > "[I have forced the uploaders] to argue that no link of any kind exists > between the original an the copy") then you are obliged to ALSO agree that > there is no link of any kind between the you of now and the you of a few > seconds from now. > Yes, I think we have to agree that there is not, nor there need to be, any "essential" link between the you of now and the you of a few seconds from now. "Identity" is just an evolutionary artifact. This is why we can well decide that an "uploaded", functionally equivalent emulation of Mr. Smith actually *is* Mr. Smith. And once we accept others to remain functionally themselves albeit having gone through somewhat unusual processes, we shall be inclined to make a projection in "survival" terms on the new entity as we do for the "I a few seconds from now". This is basically all that there is to be said on the subject, IMHO. The solution to the conundrum is going to be sociological, not philosophical or existential. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Oct 30 10:55:30 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:55:30 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Here's an idea: Let's torture sane people! =P In-Reply-To: References: <4CC8CEBF.3010701@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: On 28 October 2010 10:28, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > Whether you feel apprehensive about a version of yourself being > tortured is an indication of whether you consider that that version is > "you". If I told you you were going to be tortured next week but don't > worry, because you have a rapid metabolism your brain will be made up > of completely different matter by then, will you stop worrying? > Mmhhh. Since there is little if any evolutionary guidance here, the degree of concern strictly depends on the metaphor you choose to adopt to describe your upload. As to the sort of "independent" (i.e., multiple, diverging) copies, well, I expect it not to exceed that dictated by ordinary empathy (as opposed to self-preservation instincts), which is of course progressively stronger the closer the subject is to yourself and/or traits (normally) expressive of your genetic endowment. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From agrimes at speakeasy.net Sat Oct 30 12:59:23 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 08:59:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] No link between original and copy? Denied! In-Reply-To: References: <4CC8CEBF.3010701@speakeasy.net> <4CC97FB3.4090409@lightlink.com> Message-ID: <4CCC16AB.7070201@speakeasy.net> > "Identity" is just an evolutionary artifact. > This is why we can well decide that an "uploaded", functionally > equivalent emulation of Mr. Smith actually *is* Mr. Smith. And once we > accept others to remain functionally themselves albeit having gone > through somewhat unusual processes, we shall be inclined to make a > projection in "survival" terms on the new entity as we do for the "I a > few seconds from now". Why should I accept my consciousness abruptly terminating merely because you choose to fetishize what might come after? > This is basically all that there is to be said on the subject, IMHO. The > solution to the conundrum is going to be sociological, not philosophical > or existential. Why is it a "problem" that requires a solution? The problem that you describe exists only because you assert that uploading must be accepted (implying that you think everyone should be uploaded). If you were to accept that you and only you should be uploaded then the problem would not exist at all because you would upload and I would not. My position has always been that my primary objection is that you want to ram-rod your point of view down everyone's throat. That is wrong no matter which point of view you are pushing. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Oct 30 13:48:16 2010 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 15:48:16 +0200 Subject: [ExI] No link between original and copy? Denied! In-Reply-To: <4CCC16AB.7070201@speakeasy.net> References: <4CC8CEBF.3010701@speakeasy.net> <4CC97FB3.4090409@lightlink.com> <4CCC16AB.7070201@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/30 Alan Grimes : > Why should I accept my consciousness abruptly terminating merely because > you choose to fetishize what might come after? You shouldn't. Your consciousness is abrubtly terminated and restarted many times a time, but nothing prevents you from opposing some forms of termination more than other, including without any arguable ground. Only, when the social perception of a continuity is well established, you will be considered a kind of weirdo. But of course, philosophically speaking, in the thought experiments, or future technologies, pertaining to uploading or teleport, "death", "continuity" or "rebirth" are purely arbitrary metaphors and the discussion of their factual "accuracy" is literally meaningless, so that no cogent factual argument can ever compel you to change your way of interpreting what "really" happens in such scenarios. > Why is it a "problem" that requires a solution? The problem that you > describe exists only because you assert that uploading must be accepted > (implying that you think everyone should be uploaded). Do *I*? My personal position is simply that an animal which looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck ends up invariably by being considered a duck - by definition. Not being a Platonist, the question of "whether it really participates to the essence of duckness" is basically meaningless for me, and I maintain that it is basically undecidable in rigorous terms anyway even for those who care. Not even to confirm that "yes, it actually does", as a few people here seem to believe. -- Stefano Vaj From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Oct 30 16:57:52 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:57:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CCB0A6F.3090707@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> <4CCAE3D8.4020309@lightlink.com> <4CCB0509.4080107@lightlink.com> <4CCB0A6F.3090707@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: <7B7BE56B-A4D7-4046-9BDB-7CC225E218D8@bellsouth.net> On Oct 29, 2010, at 1:54 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > > John explicitly stated that the original would be set free, and asked how the original would feel about the prospect of his duplicate being tormented. But remember all this hasn't happened yet, the copying process will happen tomorrow and I asked if there was any reason to be nervous about it today. When the branching occurs the next day you are convinced that your soul or spirit or essence or whatever you want to call it will follow one branch and totally ignore the other, but you can not give even one reason to think that is true that even hints at logic. You can't even explain what this "something" is that is so very very very important. > Since I am the original prior to any duplicating Neither the atoms nor the information that arranged those atoms are unique, so I repeat my question, what is so original about the "original"? > I know I'm safe The tricky part in the above is "I". In these sort of thought experiments everybody always plays the part of the mighty original, but just for a second take the part of the copy and imagine what his subjective experience would be. He remembers experiencing your early childhood just as you do, he remembers going to school, falling in love, joining the Extropian list and thinking my arguments were nonsense. He remembers marching into the duplicating chamber happy and full of confidence certain that in just a few minutes he would be going home with a full pardon. The copy remembers seeing a man who looked just like him appearing 2 feet in front of him, and he's not the least bit surprised because that is exactly what he expected to happen. You are also not surprised when two very large guards with no neck enter the chamber, you wait for them to grab that other poor fellow but to your astonishment they go for you instead. You scream "No, I'm the original, he's the copy not me, he must be, I just saw him suddenly appear right in front of me!". The no-necks ignore your protests and drag you to the torture chamber. The copy in the torture chamber certainly doesn't identify with the Damien Broderick lounging around at home with his family, but he does identify with the Damien Broderick who entered the duplicating machines with high hopes, and I see no reason that identification shouldn't be reciprocal. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sat Oct 30 17:19:18 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 13:19:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <96CEA82D-F78A-4E6A-B1CE-4266F8685FE2@bellsouth.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> <4CCB0335.20403@satx.rr.com> <1F330352-A77B-4A8B-A04D-108573618CE3@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <370BCA95-C63C-439B-9B2D-CEB20BAB6B33@bellsouth.net> On Oct 29, 2010, at 9:44 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: > The soul/identity/consciousness/esssence is transferred in the course > of normal physiological replacement of the brain Yes, and we know this from the highest authority there is, direct experience. > but not if the replacement occurs artificially. I would be interested to know how you obtained this very interesting piece of information. > I have never seen in any of these threads an attempt at an explanation of this mysterious process. You have not seen an answer because nobody has seen exactly what the question is. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Oct 30 18:05:22 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 13:05:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <7B7BE56B-A4D7-4046-9BDB-7CC225E218D8@bellsouth.net> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> <4CCAE3D8.4020309@lightlink.com> <4CCB0509.4080107@lightlink.com> <4CCB0A6F.3090707@satx.rr.com> <7B7BE56B-A4D7-4046-9BDB-7CC225E218D8@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CCC5E62.8050907@satx.rr.com> On 10/30/2010 11:57 AM, John Clark wrote: > The copy remembers seeing a man who looked just like him appearing 2 > feet in front of him, and he's not the least bit surprised because that > is exactly what he expected to happen. You are also not surprised when > two very large guards with no neck enter the chamber, you wait for them > to grab that other poor fellow but to your astonishment they go for you > instead. Ah, so the psychopaths lied (as they tend to do) and tortured the original instead. (Only the original can see his copy "appear in front of him," rather than feeling a visual lurch and finding himself on the other side of the room looking at the scanner and the original.) No doubt the original should have taken this untrustworthiness of psychopaths into account and been filled with dread the day before. Granted, you can now retweak the conditions of your imaginary set-up until you make it impossible for the two to know which of them is which. Borrow the Algis Budrys ROGUE MOON case but discover that the original is always conveyed via wormhole to the distant "reassembly station" in Luna (although later it turns out there's been no disassembly) and instead a "quantum echo effect" causes a perfect duplicate to fill the void left by the original's absence (as in Disch's ECHO ROUND MY BONES). Now everyone will be sure that the I in the "scanner" is the original, whereas he is actually on the Moon, gloomily convinced that he is a copy. Then a theorist will discover what really happened, and a court case will return the original's rights to bank account, spouse, etc etc. Then another theorist will prove that actually the original has been disintegrated and *both* current instances are copies, created simultaneously. None of this will matter for long, because everyone from PETA to Homeland Security will force the process to be banned, until Halliburton's secret money-copying machine suffers a glitch (having been built from substandard teleportium) and starts spewing millions of copies of Dick Cheney, from a stored scan, all over Afghanistan, where most of them immediately have heart attacks and die, their rotting corpses dismaying the Taliban and causing millions to flee on foot into Iran. Damien Broderick From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Oct 30 18:10:11 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 13:10:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <370BCA95-C63C-439B-9B2D-CEB20BAB6B33@bellsouth.net> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> <4CCB0335.20403@satx.rr.com> <1F330352-A77B-4A8B-A04D-108573618CE3@bellsouth.net> <370BCA95-C63C-439B-9B2D-CEB20BAB6B33@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <4CCC5F83.6020506@satx.rr.com> On 10/30/2010 12:19 PM, John Clark wrote: >> I have never seen in any of these threads an attempt at an >> explanation of this mysterious process. > You have not seen an answer because nobody has seen exactly what the > question is. This is Dr. Papaioannou's point. From jrd1415 at gmail.com Sat Oct 30 21:52:03 2010 From: jrd1415 at gmail.com (Jeff Davis) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 14:52:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Flash of insight... In-Reply-To: <4CCB3ACB.8000106@speakeasy.net> References: <4CCB3ACB.8000106@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: 2010/10/29 Alan Grimes : > We each have a perception of our own > consciousness but these perceptions might be radically different in ways > for which there are no words and in such a way that affects practically > nothing but how we perceive uploading. > > Short of getting into DSM-IV definitions, what is it like to be you? > > My own experience is a fairly fluid stream of consciousness which > operates at all waking hours, and even disrupts my sleep as it did last > night, too much on my mind! =P I have a fairly strong sense of mind-body > integration. I never feel that my limbs belong to someone else. I'm able > to divide my attention several ways but can only really work at one > thing at a time. I'm not sure what else would be relevant to add, > perhaps it will come out in discussion. Totally excellent question. I must confess to both laziness and cowardice..., well actually, laziness is enough. I have been wanting to discus this sort of thing for years now, ever since Max's talk at extro 3, which as I recall addressed the limits on human accomplishment imposed by instinct-driven behaviors and current cognitive limits. Then, last year there was "The thread that dare not speak its name": Gordon Swobe's and respondents' tireless posting of his challenge to uploading, based on his assertion of mind/body inseparability. In that thread, every term relating to "consciousness" -- cognition, volition, sentience,...all the usual suspects -- was deployed at one point or another. Others hated it, but I thoroughly enjoyed that thread, which came at the question from so many angles. In the end I was able to break new ground in my thinking on this subject, and am grateful to all participants. Well,... in that thread I noticed something odd. Everyone was talking about consciousness, but despite each of us having a lifetime of experience being conscious -- subjective experience to be sure, but that's hardly an excuse for ignoring the data set -- no one was describing the details of consciousness as they experienced it. I wondered why. I guessed -- but I'm not married to the notion -- that maybe folks are hesitant to talk about their inner life. Why? Perhaps because it's so over-the-top whacky that no one wants to run the risk -- social, professional, ego stability, whatever -- of fessing up. Now Alan asks the question straight up. Okay, here's the deal. I have a flippin' raft of personalities inside my head. So much so that I have been trying to figure out how to reconcile them with a model of consciousness. I've used the term "personalities" above, but shift over to "consciousness" below. I use the two interchangeably. A "consciousness" is, in the context of my ongoing attempt to make order out of this business, a personality or persona. Try substituting "persona" for "consciousness" below, and see how it feels. There's the speaking consciousness, the hearing consciousness, the seeing consciousness, the tactile consciousness, (presumably "tasting" and smelling consciousnesses (powerful but "quiet"). I see these as neocortical-to-sensory-organs-and-related-tissues modules, engaged in a continuous periodic back-and-forth signaling paradigm. Then there are wholly neocortical personas: the "watcher" or oversight consciousness is one of these, as are the various links from mirror neurons to other neocortical locations. Then there are mood-associated personas: the angry (fierce, "warrior") judgment-limited consciousness, the calm, sensible (but timid, weak?) consciousness. Others? Finally, as a first generation attempt to fuse these notions into a model of consciousness ( "hard problem" my ass. Nothing's hard. Not knowing is NOT the same as "hard". See my boy Ray.) I hypothesize the coordinated cross-talk of this multitude of neocortical back-and-forth modules to be what we call consciousness. In support of this notion I submit that the evolutionary process achieves complexity by developing a diversity of simple "modules" -- bacterial cells -- which then combine into more complex modules -- eukaryotic cells -- which then evolve their own diversity, and then combine into the multi-cellular "modules" we call organisms -- within which there is yet again "modularity" in the form of organs. These multicellular organisms then evolve even further. And of course modularity in the brain is an established fact, as is the gradual evolution-driven layering of ever more modules in brains from C.elegans to homo not-so-elegant I talk to myself. The talker and the listener are not the same persona. Sometimes I have a conversation where two talkers with different attitudes or points of view engage each other. Sometimes this all stays inside my head, but the single-talker habitually speaks "out loud". When two speakers go vocal to each other, it's almost always a deliberate act of self-entertainment (and whimsical creativity). Which brings up the question of what is going on in your head when you "play" a part, play at being someone else? As we get older (some of you) we may set aside this easy playfulness, and become "who we are", but the self-evident plasticity of our youth is a data point, and suggestive. Few of these personality components have executive authority, which seems to remain with the over-arching observer "I", and with any innervated but non-neural, non-neocortical somatic part of me. This is the lesson of pain. Tissue in survival mode can compel "the I" to save it. Hope this is worth something to someone. Best, Jeff Davis "Everything's hard till you know how to do it." Ray Charles From thespike at satx.rr.com Sat Oct 30 22:27:45 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 17:27:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Flash of insight... In-Reply-To: References: <4CCB3ACB.8000106@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4CCC9BE1.9050100@satx.rr.com> On 10/30/2010 4:52 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > I hypothesize the > coordinated cross-talk of this multitude of neocortical back-and-forth > modules to be what we call consciousness. I believe in the trade this is known as "society of mind." Writing fiction is "talking to yourself" and "listening to yourself" and "playing parts" for a living. Somehow you hive off imaginary entities that often have very little to do with your own sense of self, and are obviously repurposed interior models of the kind we use in understanding and extrapolating other people and situations. Damien Broderick From darren.greer3 at gmail.com Sun Oct 31 00:18:29 2010 From: darren.greer3 at gmail.com (Darren Greer) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:18:29 -0300 Subject: [ExI] Flash of insight... In-Reply-To: <4CCC9BE1.9050100@satx.rr.com> References: <4CCB3ACB.8000106@speakeasy.net> <4CCC9BE1.9050100@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: Writing fiction is "talking to yourself" and "listening to yourself" and "playing parts" for a living. Somehow you hive off imaginary entities that often have very little to do with your own sense of self, and are obviously repurposed interior models of the kind we use in understanding and extrapolating other people and situations. I was going to make a similar response reading Jeff's post before I read Damien's. I would like to add the the process of writing fiction, or just having an imaginative conversation with yourself as several different personas within your own mind, is sometimes an incredibly powerful and transcendent experience. So much so that you can see how people may occasionally get confused by this unique ability of the human mind and ascribe it to something supernatural or other worldly or even chalk it up as yet more evidence of that most ubiquitous and time-worn of spiritual concepts: that of the human soul. Darren On Sat, Oct 30, 2010 at 7:27 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 10/30/2010 4:52 PM, Jeff Davis wrote: > > I hypothesize the >> coordinated cross-talk of this multitude of neocortical back-and-forth >> modules to be what we call consciousness. >> > > I believe in the trade this is known as "society of mind." > > Writing fiction is "talking to yourself" and "listening to yourself" and > "playing parts" for a living. Somehow you hive off imaginary entities that > often have very little to do with your own sense of self, and are obviously > repurposed interior models of the kind we use in understanding and > extrapolating other people and situations. > > Damien Broderick > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- "I don't regret the kingdoms. What sense in borders and nations and patriotism? But I miss the kings." -*Harold and Maude* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From agrimes at speakeasy.net Sun Oct 31 01:17:08 2010 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 21:17:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Flash of insight... In-Reply-To: References: <4CCB3ACB.8000106@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <4CCCC394.8020904@speakeasy.net> > Well,... in that thread I noticed something odd. Everyone was talking > about consciousness, but despite each of us having a lifetime of > experience being conscious -- subjective experience to be sure, but > that's hardly an excuse for ignoring the data set -- no one was > describing the details of consciousness as they experienced it. I > wondered why. I guessed -- but I'm not married to the notion -- that > maybe folks are hesitant to talk about their inner life. Why? > Perhaps because it's so over-the-top whacky that no one wants to run > the risk -- social, professional, ego stability, whatever -- of > fessing up. > Now Alan asks the question straight up. > Okay, here's the deal. I have a flippin' raft of personalities inside > my head. So much so that I have been trying to figure out how to > reconcile them with a model of consciousness. I've used the term > "personalities" above, but shift over to "consciousness" below. I use > the two interchangeably. A "consciousness" is, in the context of my > ongoing attempt to make order out of this business, a personality or > persona. Try substituting "persona" for "consciousness" below, and > see how it feels. > There's the speaking consciousness, the hearing consciousness, the > seeing consciousness, the tactile consciousness, (presumably "tasting" > and smelling consciousnesses (powerful but "quiet"). I see these as > neocortical-to-sensory-organs-and-related-tissues modules, engaged in > a continuous periodic back-and-forth signaling paradigm. If your self-perceptions are accurate, you have a type of ESP for seeing your mental states! In the ancestral environment, this was probably maladaptive because the evolutionary environment required that a mind spend as much attention as possible on its environment and as little as possible on it's own internal state. So for most of us (probably 80%), it is probably the case that we are blind to this part of ourselves. However, now, and in the future, this kind of self-perception could be considered a super power. First it makes you uniquely qualified to work on AI because you have a deeper level of perception of how your own mind works. (I have to rely on book learning and inference). Furthermore, with neural interfacing, you will require the ability to "see" and manipulate the parts of your mind so that you can organize your own consciousness across a diversity of platforms. The robot I plan to program in a few years will require this ability too! -- Heck, I want the ability now cuz of the aforementioned benefits. -- Even better the ability to turn it on and off as the need arises. It will take a great deal of research, however, to figure out exactly what is going on here. =\ Definitely worth it though... -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. From ablainey at aol.com Sun Oct 31 09:05:10 2010 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 05:05:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Flash of insight... In-Reply-To: References: <4CCB3ACB.8000106@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <8CD46F1D7619EAC-22BC-10939@webmail-d003.sysops.aol.com> I'll pick up your point about multiple persona's as I have the same but to a higher degree than most. I have always compartmentalised my life, so work mates don't know friends. Friends don't know family etc. There is some overlap btu I try my hardest to keep them seperate so that in any given situation I am the 'Persona' which is most relevent to the situation. This isn't a pschysoid 'why am I in my car?' type of thing, it is just an extention of the normal work mindset vs home persona that we all have. I describe it as a Clover or flower personality. If you imagine a flower then each seperate petal is a persona, but they are all joined by a central hub. However personas that would logically be opposite do have problems with memory/brain function access. If I am in a high tech, building things mindset then I find it impossible to think about composing music or doing artistic things. They are Alien concepts which cause confussion until my mind adjusts. About general conciousness. 'I' am located in my head and the exact position varies. Mostly I am up against my eyeballs like looking out of a domed submarine window, but I often move backward more like I am in a office in a very tall building looking out across the room and out the window. Quite often the window will fog up and I will be playing images inside the room which overide what I am seeing or hearing. As for the rest of my body, it is like everything outside the skull is slightly distant similar to sitting in the cab of an earth mover. you have control of its arm and have sensory feedback, but it isn't part of you. My disociation with the rest of the body isn't anywhere near that extreme. It is just in terms of the conscious self which arms and legs are not quite a part of. -----Original Message----- From: Jeff Davis To: ExI chat list Sent: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 22:52 Subject: Re: [ExI] Flash of insight... 2010/10/29 Alan Grimes : Now Alan asks the question straight up. Okay, here's the deal. I have a flippin' raft of personalities inside my head. So much so that I have been trying to figure out how to reconcile them with a model of consciousness. I've used the term "personalities" above, but shift over to "consciousness" below. I use the two interchangeably. A "consciousness" is, in the context of my ongoing attempt to make order out of this business, a personality or persona. Try substituting "persona" for "consciousness" below, and see how it feels. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Oct 31 14:47:43 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 10:47:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Let's play What If. In-Reply-To: <4CCC5E62.8050907@satx.rr.com> References: <4CC6738E.3050609@speakeasy.net> <4CC76BFC.2080801@satx.rr.com> <4CC7A7FE.9030803@satx.rr.com> <4CC858FE.1060709@satx.rr.com> <87637D00-7198-48F4-85EE-D69E4CAB046B@bellsouth.net> <4CC869E3.9000004@satx.rr.com> <70898B7F-A950-4C61-A453-E71A0D58E238@bellsouth.net> <4CC991EC.5010605@satx.rr.com> <4CC994FF.4000705@satx.rr.com> <073BE5EA-3D97-446D-B915-2CF6BF506465@bellsouth.net> <4CC9B3A2.4010301@satx.rr.com> <4CCA0C1A.3050704@satx.rr.com> <72483A7C-973F-4AEB-81B8-22E5DF6FF595@bellsouth.net> <4CCAE3D8.4020309@lightlink.com> <4CCB0509.4080107@lightlink.com> <4CCB0A6F.3090707@satx.rr.com> <7B7BE56B-A4D7-4046-9BDB-7CC225E218D8@bellsouth.net> <4CCC5E62.8050907@satx.rr.com> Message-ID: On Oct 30, 2010, at 2:05 PM, Damien Broderick wrote: > On 10/30/2010 11:57 AM, John Clark wrote: > >> The copy remembers seeing a man who looked just like him appearing 2 >> feet in front of him, and he's not the least bit surprised because that >> is exactly what he expected to happen. You are also not surprised when >> two very large guards with no neck enter the chamber, you wait for them >> to grab that other poor fellow but to your astonishment they go for you >> instead. > > Ah, so the psychopaths lied No. > Only the original can see his copy "appear in front of him," Incorrect. > Granted, you can now retweak the conditions of your imaginary set-up until you make it impossible for the two to know which of them is which. Actually its quite difficult to come up with a scenario where the copy DOES instantly know he is the copy. You could have a trusted third party videotape the entire copying process, if you showed the recording to the copy and the recording showed the original walking into the duplicating chamber and then the copy appearing 2 feet to his LEFT and the copy remembers the man who looked just like him appearing 2 feet to his RIGHT then the copy would know he is the copy. But it would take time to present the evidence and might not work even then; the photographer would have to be very trusted indeed before you could force yourself to really believe such a thing. At any rate, all this is irrelevant to the question I asked you, would you be nervous knowing you were going to be copied tomorrow and if so why. Today I would be about as nervous as its possible to be if I knew that tomorrow I would be duplicated and the copy was to be tortured and the original set free, but I would be equally nervous if the original was tortured and the copy set free. The two situations are equivalent. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From jonkc at bellsouth.net Sun Oct 31 17:44:26 2010 From: jonkc at bellsouth.net (John Clark) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 13:44:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Flash of insight... In-Reply-To: <8CD46F1D7619EAC-22BC-10939@webmail-d003.sysops.aol.com> References: <4CCB3ACB.8000106@speakeasy.net> <8CD46F1D7619EAC-22BC-10939@webmail-d003.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4F38D7D2-0079-4F54-AAB6-9E4B1185A07E@bellsouth.net> On Oct 31, 2010, at 5:05 AM, ABlainey at aol.com wrote: > About general conciousness. 'I' am located in my head and the exact position varies. But that has nothing to do with the position of your brain, it's because the sense organs for 4 of your 5 senses are exclusively located on your head; if your brain was in your foot you'd still feel "I" was located in your head. And if you are thinking very hard about the Great Wall Of China then, if the concept of position has any useful meaning when dealing with consciousness which it probably doesn't, then your consciousness is in China. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ablainey at aol.com Sun Oct 31 21:44:05 2010 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 17:44:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Flash of insight... In-Reply-To: <4F38D7D2-0079-4F54-AAB6-9E4B1185A07E@bellsouth.net> References: <4CCB3ACB.8000106@speakeasy.net><8CD46F1D7619EAC-22BC-10939@webmail-d003.sysops.aol.com> <4F38D7D2-0079-4F54-AAB6-9E4B1185A07E@bellsouth.net> Message-ID: <8CD475BDEDA80D9-EDC-21A0D@Webmail-d121.sysops.aol.com> I completely agree John and if my eyes were located elsewhere, that would be the centre of my perceived consciousness. As such the concept of position isn't usefull at all. It would only prove such if someone posts that they feel their 'self' is located somewhere other than the head. Which considering the size of our skin and the massive level of sensory information it creates, its interesting that the I isn't more body centric. It just goes to show how much priority the visual and auditory senses have. I wonder where blind people feel they are? hmmm. A -----Original Message----- From: John Clark To: ExI chat list Sent: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 17:44 Subject: Re: [ExI] Flash of insight... On Oct 31, 2010, at 5:05 AM, ABlainey at aol.com wrote: About general conciousness. 'I' am located in my head and the exact position varies. But that has nothing to do with the position of your brain, it's because the sense organs for 4 of your 5 senses are exclusively located on your head; if your brain was in your foot you'd still feel "I" was located in your head. And if you are thinking very hard about the Great Wall Of China then, if the concept of position has any useful meaning when dealing with consciousness which it probably doesn't, then your consciousness is in China. John K Clark = -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From thespike at satx.rr.com Sun Oct 31 22:00:00 2010 From: thespike at satx.rr.com (Damien Broderick) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 17:00:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Flash of insight... In-Reply-To: <8CD475BDEDA80D9-EDC-21A0D@Webmail-d121.sysops.aol.com> References: <4CCB3ACB.8000106@speakeasy.net><8CD46F1D7619EAC-22BC-10939@webmail-d003.sysops.aol.com> <4F38D7D2-0079-4F54-AAB6-9E4B1185A07E@bellsouth.net> <8CD475BDEDA80D9-EDC-21A0D@Webmail-d121.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4CCDE6E0.3020008@satx.rr.com> On 10/31/2010 4:44 PM, ablainey at aol.com wrote: > considering the size of our skin and the massive level of sensory > information it creates, its interesting that the I isn't more body centric. I suspect it is more delocalized for expert gymnasts. Also interesting that in NDE reports, many people claim to experience themselves as "floating above" their damaged bodies (although still "visuo"-centric, I gather). Susan Blackmore explains this as deriving from a wireframe model of body and surrounds that we supposedly build and keep current at an unconscious level; NDEs would then be a sort of imaginal transposition of one's constructed sense of location to a point *outside* the wireframe, or at least to a different part of it beyond the body's boundaries. Damien Broderick From brent.allsop at canonizer.com Sun Oct 31 22:31:29 2010 From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 16:31:29 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Flash of insight... In-Reply-To: <8CD475BDEDA80D9-EDC-21A0D@Webmail-d121.sysops.aol.com> References: <4CCB3ACB.8000106@speakeasy.net><8CD46F1D7619EAC-22BC-10939@webmail-d003.sysops.aol.com> <4F38D7D2-0079-4F54-AAB6-9E4B1185A07E@bellsouth.net> <8CD475BDEDA80D9-EDC-21A0D@Webmail-d121.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <4CCDEE41.20706@canonizer.com> And remember that there are two parts to most conscious perception. There is the conscious knowledge, and it's referent. For out of body experiences, the knowledge of our 'spirit' or 'I' leaves our knowledge of our body (all in our brain). Our conscious knowledge of our body has a referent in reality, but our knowledge of this 'spirit' does not. Surely in the future we'll be able to alter and represent all this conscious knowledge any way we want. And evolution surely had survivable reasons for usually representing this 'I' just behind our knowledge of our eyes. Brent Allsop On 10/31/2010 3:44 PM, ablainey at aol.com wrote: > I completely agree John and if my eyes were located elsewhere, that > would be the centre of my perceived consciousness. As such the concept > of position isn't usefull at all. It would only prove such if someone > posts that they feel their 'self' is located somewhere other than the > head. Which considering the size of our skin and the massive level of > sensory information it creates, its interesting that the I isn't more > body centric. It just goes to show how much priority the visual and > auditory senses have. > I wonder where blind people feel they are? hmmm. > > A > > > -----Original Message----- > From: John Clark > To: ExI chat list > Sent: Sun, 31 Oct 2010 17:44 > Subject: Re: [ExI] Flash of insight... > > On Oct 31, 2010, at 5:05 AM, ABlainey at aol.com > wrote: > >> About general conciousness.*'I'*am located in my head and the exact >> position varies. > > But that has nothing to do with the position of your brain, it's > because the sense organs for 4 of your 5 senses are exclusively > located on your head; if your brain was in your foot you'd still feel > "I" was located in your head. And if you are thinking very hard about > the Great Wall Of China then, if the concept of position has any > useful meaning when dealing with consciousness which it probably > doesn't, then your consciousness is in China. > > John K Clark > > = > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mrjones2020 at gmail.com Sat Oct 30 10:35:44 2010 From: mrjones2020 at gmail.com (Mr Jones) Date: Sat, 30 Oct 2010 06:35:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Flash of insight... In-Reply-To: <4CCB3ACB.8000106@speakeasy.net> References: <4CCB3ACB.8000106@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: If you haven't already,read "I am a strange loop". A great read about this very topic. On Oct 29, 2010 5:20 PM, "Alan Grimes" wrote: We are all so comfortable in our own skins (in theory at least), that we might all be missing a truly shocking revelation. I mean think about it, if you were born with some kind of color blindness, so you had trouble with the concepts of red and green because they both looked yellow. Otherwise you would be entirely unaware of it. Or night blindness, you might think that you simply can't see at night because it's dark not because you have defective rod-receptors unless you were tested for the condition. >From all these descriptions it finally dawned upon me that we might be seeing the same phenomenon here! We each have a perception of our own consciousness but these perceptions might be radically different in ways for which there are no words and in such a way that affects practically nothing but how we perceive uploading. Short of getting into DSM-IV definitions, what is it like to be you? My own experience is a fairly fluid stream of consciousness which operates at all waking hours, and even disrupts my sleep as it did last night, too much on my mind! =P I have a fairly strong sense of mind-body integration. I never feel that my limbs belong to someone else. I'm able to divide my attention several ways but can only really work at one thing at a time. I'm not sure what else would be relevant to add, perhaps it will come out in discussion. -- DO NOT USE OBAMACARE. DO NOT BUY OBAMACARE. Powers are not rights. _______________________________________________ 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: