,  
Cc: Tomasz Rola 
Subject: (NASA.gov) SPS-ALPHA:  The  First Practical Solar Power Satellite via
    Arbitrarily Large PHased Array

(There is a link to +100-pages worth pdf, containing colored diagrammes, 
photos and whatnot, which perhaphs is interesting - TR)

[

http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/stp/niac/mankins_sps_alpha.html

]

(... links deleted ...)

   SPS-ALPHA:  The  First Practical Solar Power Satellite via Arbitrarily
   Large PHased Array

   John Mankins
   Artemis Innovation Management Solutions
   NIAC Fellowships icon
   [14]> Larger photo
   [15]> Phase I Final Report (PDF)
   SPS-ALPHA  (Solar  Power Satellite via Arbitrarily Large Phased Array)
   is  a  novel,  bio-mimetic  approach  to  the challenge of space solar
   power. If successful, this project will make possible the construction
   of  huge  platforms  from tens of thousands of small elements that can
   deliver  remotely  and  affordably  10s  to  1000s  of megawatts using
   wireless power transmission to markets on Earth and missions in space.
   The  selected  NIAC  project  will enlist the support of a world-class
   international  team  to  determine  the  conceptual  feasiblity of the
   SPS-ALPHA  by  means  of  integrated  systems  analyses,  supported by
   selected "proof-of-concept" technology experiments.

   [16]> Back To Top

References

  14. http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/590465main_mankins_full.jpg
  15. http://www.nasa.gov/pdf/716070main_Mankins_2011_PhI_SPS_Alpha.pdf
  16. http://www.nasa.gov/offices/oct/stp/niac/mankins_sps_alpha.html#backtoTop

From spike66 at att.net  Fri Feb  1 00:39:33 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 16:39:33 -0800
Subject: [ExI] breakout culture (Was: ambition)
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
 <50FF1102.2080908@aleph.se> 
Message-ID: <007501ce0014$9b0fc150$d12f43f0$@att.net>

>... On Behalf Of Tomasz Rola
...

>...I'm not sure if this helps, but there are (still!) a number of so called
"uncontacted" peoples...

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--

Soon we may need to redefine the term uncontacted peoples to mean everyone
who do not have internet.

spike

From anders at aleph.se  Fri Feb  1 11:17:13 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2013 11:17:13 +0000
Subject: [ExI] breakout culture (Was: ambition)
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
 <50FF1102.2080908@aleph.se> 
Message-ID: <510BA439.4030702@aleph.se>

On 31/01/2013 21:58, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> On Tue, 22 Jan 2013, Anders Sandberg wrote:
>
>> I am running minimum viable population models right now, and around 2000 is
>> probably necessary for indefinite survival. It all depends on
>> mortality/fertility of course, and that is hard to estimate historically
>> (which is how I have managed to rope in my archeologist - we are investigating
>> the osteological paradox of how fluctuating demographics affects the
>> archaeological finds).
> I'm not sure if this helps, but there are (still!) a number of so called
> "uncontacted" peoples. Of course, there must have been some kind of
> unidirectional contact to know about them. The average number of such
> group is about 200+ people. Sometimes much less.

Yes, the typical village or band size is around 100-150 people, limited 
by the Dunbar number. This is likely too small to survive indefinitely: 
one interesting result of my simulations is that stable populations 
probably need several such groups linked together into a tribe to be 
demographically long-term stable.

However, isolated non-viable groups can survive surprisingly long. The 
population lingers for centuries, despite being too small to survive 
indefinitely.

Most "uncontacted" groups are of course just uncontacted by mainstream 
civilization. They have dealings with their neighbors. The Sentinelese 
are a bit extreme.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Feb  1 12:25:09 2013
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 13:25:09 +0100
Subject: [ExI] breakout culture (Was: ambition)
In-Reply-To: <510BA439.4030702@aleph.se>
References: 
 <50FF1102.2080908@aleph.se> 
 <510BA439.4030702@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <20130201122509.GS6172@leitl.org>

On Fri, Feb 01, 2013 at 11:17:13AM +0000, Anders Sandberg wrote:

> Yes, the typical village or band size is around 100-150 people, limited  
> by the Dunbar number. This is likely too small to survive indefinitely:  
> one interesting result of my simulations is that stable populations  
> probably need several such groups linked together into a tribe to be  
> demographically long-term stable.
>
> However, isolated non-viable groups can survive surprisingly long. The  
> population lingers for centuries, despite being too small to survive  
> indefinitely.
>
> Most "uncontacted" groups are of course just uncontacted by mainstream  
> civilization. They have dealings with their neighbors. The Sentinelese  
> are a bit extreme.

Coincidently, reading http://www.amazon.com/The-World-Until-Yesterday-Traditional/dp/0670024813/
at the moment.

From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Feb  1 20:59:56 2013
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 21:59:56 +0100
Subject: [ExI] In memory of Dan Massey
Message-ID: <20130201205956.GI6172@leitl.org>

----- Forwarded message from Giulio Prisco  -----

From: Giulio Prisco 
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 20:04:22 +0100
To: Alison Gardner Massey ,
	Martine Rothblatt ,
	Linda Chamberlain ,
	Loraine Rhodes ,
	Khannea Suntzu ,
	Aubrey de Grey , Kim Violet ,
	Lincoln Cannon ,
	turingchurch at googlegroups.com, transfigurism at googlegroups.com
Subject: In memory of Dan Massey
Reply-To: turingchurch at googlegroups.com

In memory of Dan Massey
http://turingchurch.com/2013/02/01/in-memory-of-dan-massey/

Our dear friend Dan Massey is no longer with us. We mourn a
Renaissance man interested in everything under the stars, a visionary
thinker, a relentless social activist, a scientist, a teacher, and a
friend.

I met Dan for the first time at Transvision 2010 in Milan, Italy
(summary and video of Dan?s presentation). The day before the
Conference Dan and Alison came to Como with K&K and went to Bellagio
on the lake by boat.

I remember the intriguing hints that Dan kept dropping about a ?Cosmic
Government.? Then I had frequent opportunities to discuss mythologies
and cosmologies with Dan, among many other things. He was really
interested in everything. He was persuaded that death is not the end,
and expected to go on an eternal, infinite journey after death. Dan,
may the eternal cosmic winds be fair and wonderful to you.

Participating in the August 2012 Discussion Group of the Mormon
Transhumanist Association, Dan described very eloquently the idea,
also outlined in his comment to How to cope with death: the Cosmist
?Third Way?, that other civilizations in the universe may have already
developed resurrection technologies and may be already ?providing
resurrection services? to less advanced civilizations like ours. If
this is the case, we and everyone else in the universe will be
resurrected by the ?Cosmic Government.?

Here is a (slightly edited, but almost literal) transcript of Dan?s
words, beginning at minute 23 in the video below:

"I think you start out realizing that the universe is vastly older
than the little area within the light sphere that we can see from this
planet on the backwater of the Milky Way galaxy.
Let?s say just for the sake of argument that it is not merely a few
billion years old, but it is a few trillion years old, maybe even
quadrillion years old, I have no idea obviously, no way to find out,
really, right now anyway, but I feel that there is a well organized
cosmic government and civilization, that populates literally millions
and millions, I really should say billions and billions (Carl Sagan)
of planets scattered throughout this part of the universe, and they
are all, you know, most part of them are in some degree of
communication with each other, there is some sort of coordinated sense
of purpose in this community, and they have been at it for a very long
time by our standards.
So during this time, you expect that this kinds of things, life
extension, and mind uploading, and all these other technologies that
we speculate about, would have been long explored, analyzed, built on,
other things developed. Frankly, I think the promises of many
religions of personal immortality on some terms, sometimes the terms
are absurd, but the idea of personal immortality is not absurd at all,
because just as we think that we could resurrect our dead, and we
might go out and help other people to resurrect their dead, well,
rather than being at the front-end of that process, we are at the
back-end of that process, we are the clients, not the service company
for the project.
Why? Because there is some really big project going on in the
universe, and it?s bringing about the universe in unity and harmony.
It has really long ways to go, but on this planet it has incredibly
long ways to go, because, you know, whether you call it the fall of
man or the planetary rebellion or any of these things that are written
down in some garbled form in the myth books of world religions, the
fact is that something very bad happened here a long time ago, and we
have been pretty much in the backwater, cut off from cosmic
civilization ever since."

This eulogy honors only one of the many, many facets of Dan. See also
this long video interview with Dan and Alison on sexual freedom, the
occupy movement, transhumanism, the singularity, physics, religion and
spirituality, and their forthcoming book. LGBT rights and quantum
entanglement in the same talk, and see his articles here and on his
website Venus+X.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "turingchurch" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to turingchurch+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

----- End forwarded message -----
-- 
Eugen* Leitl leitl http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A  7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE

From rtomek at ceti.pl  Fri Feb  1 22:03:50 2013
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 23:03:50 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ExI] breakout culture (Was: ambition)
In-Reply-To: <510BA439.4030702@aleph.se>
References: 
 <50FF1102.2080908@aleph.se> 
 <510BA439.4030702@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Fri, 1 Feb 2013, Anders Sandberg wrote:

[...]

> Yes, the typical village or band size is around 100-150 people, limited 
> by the Dunbar number. This is likely too small to survive indefinitely: 
> one interesting result of my simulations is that stable populations 
> probably need several such groups linked together into a tribe to be 
> demographically long-term stable.
[...]

Interesting. So, I understand your sims are set up for pre-industrial 
civilizations? Or maybe even before agrarian revolution? Because for early 
industrial-like civ (say, England around 1800), my very wild guess is, it 
would require about 20-200 kilopeople - but this again depends on what is 
the role of economy, the more economy the more people needed to sustain it 
for given tech level, production needs consumers, something like this. But 
on a space ship, no need for money (well, not sure about it but let's 
assume), so production is maintained with disregard of costs, as long as 
technical side is ok (enough energy and materials and people to operate 
the devices).

BTW, I can easily imagine a population of one, with proper tech, sustained 
"infinitely". As long as there is no supernova or angry asteroid or 
"lucky strike" by gamma ray or...

Hmm, I guess for real world survival longer than few (hundred) millennia a 
really good tech is a must (and IMHO we are at best halfway there, even 
without starting the whole uploading business, just for creatures 
resembling humans in form and lifestyle). And this makes any other 
assumptions, like limits based on genetics or even Dunbar's number a 
little less significant (like, we can fabricate genes out of "genopedia" 
as needed, we can integrate with some kind of info-processing implants or 
maybe grow better brains by better genes etc). Or so I would say.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **

From natasha at natasha.cc  Sat Feb  2 02:00:54 2013
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Fri, 1 Feb 2013 19:00:54 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Elections at Humanity+ - 2 Board seats open
Message-ID: <001a01ce00e9$22f22e80$68d68b80$@natasha.cc>

Friends,

I am personally endorsing Adam Ford and Brandon Whale.  Another favorite is
Stuart Mason Dambrot.  Any one of these candidates can bring the much needed
hands-on experience to Humanity+.  Not on that, they have the credentials
and the know-how! 

Please help us freshen things up at Humanity+!  Why?  Because the Board
needs two new members who have a track record for getting things done, have
their own large network that will vastly increase our membership, and a
strong business and organization structure that Humanity+ needs. 

I know Adam and Brandon or Stuart can do this.  I hope you consider voting
for them!

Cheers -

Natasha

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From anders at aleph.se  Sat Feb  2 12:10:41 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 12:10:41 +0000
Subject: [ExI] breakout culture (Was: ambition)
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
 <50FF1102.2080908@aleph.se> 
 <510BA439.4030702@aleph.se> 
Message-ID: <510D0241.9020400@aleph.se>

On 01/02/2013 22:03, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> Interesting. So, I understand your sims are set up for pre-industrial
> civilizations? Or maybe even before agrarian revolution?

Yes, I am currently tuning them using late Roman/Medieval life tables 
from South Germany (Stettfeldt). I have life tables from 
hunter-gatherers, but it was the instability of these that got the 
project started (sometimes complaining aloud about having to add fudge 
factors to get reasonable results pays off! I actually asked "Is there 
an archeologist in the house?" and got a yes answer.)

>   Because for early
> industrial-like civ (say, England around 1800), my very wild guess is, it
> would require about 20-200 kilopeople - but this again depends on what is
> the role of economy, the more economy the more people needed to sustain it
> for given tech level, production needs consumers, something like this.

It is pretty complicated, and I don't think any economists have any 
quick and nice answers ("Well, dear boy, since the economy of scale 
exponent is 1.07 and the proportionality constant back in 1801 was what 
it was, your answer will be 5.7 million people") - I hope to find a few 
and pump them for more information when I get the time.

>   But
> on a space ship, no need for money (well, not sure about it but let's
> assume), so production is maintained with disregard of costs, as long as
> technical side is ok (enough energy and materials and people to operate
> the devices).

Cost is cost, even with no money. If I want a kilogram of steel it has 
to be made from the mass and energy budget of the spacecraft, and it 
will be unavailable for other functions as long as I have it.

In the case of the spaceship the bigger problem is maintaining the 
technology needed: there must be enough people who understand it, there 
must be technology that allows them to build or repair it, and there 
must be a sufficient influx of new people who understand it to replace 
those who disappear. The Apollo crews no doubt knew a lot of 
engineering, but they were dependent on ground control to solve many 
problems and could definitely not build another Saturn 5 on their own.

It really is the problem of closure in self-replicating systems. Here 
the system is an economy rather than a device.

> Hmm, I guess for real world survival longer than few (hundred) millennia a
> really good tech is a must (and IMHO we are at best halfway there, even
> without starting the whole uploading business, just for creatures
> resembling humans in form and lifestyle). And this makes any other
> assumptions, like limits based on genetics or even Dunbar's number a
> little less significant (like, we can fabricate genes out of "genopedia"
> as needed, we can integrate with some kind of info-processing implants or
> maybe grow better brains by better genes etc). Or so I would say.

 From a demographic survival perspective, having a long-lived population 
is very good (more time to fix things), having the tech to provide loads 
of resources allows you to have a high fertility if you so choose 
(especially since maternal mortality can be kept down), and you can 
counter a lot of the normal variability of the environment (be it bad 
harvests or supernovas). Good medicine indeed makes genetic problems 
manageable, and good communication/coordination tech gets around Dunbar.

There is of course the problem that more advanced tech also allows 
individuals to make more dangerous things. My Medieval Germans did not 
even know what pitchblende was (despite it being found in the region), 
let alone that the uranium inside could be super-destructive when 
extracted in the right way. Today I can write a computer virus or order 
DNA for some nasty pathogen without rising from my chair (actually 
turning these into something likely to be destructive would take more 
work, admittedly). But it is not clear that endogenous tech risks have 
to go up: they are likely a function of the coordination/oversight of 
the society, and different forms of organisation can likely manage 
these. (A crude existence proof is of course a 24/7 surveillance society 
devoted to safety, but there are hopefully liveable examples too).

So, yes, hightech societies are likely far more stable than low-tech 
ones. But they might be hard to initially achieve, since they require a 
criticial size of population and knowledge with the right memes.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

From anders at aleph.se  Sat Feb  2 12:26:39 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 12:26:39 +0000
Subject: [ExI] The Field of HCI
In-Reply-To: <01a001cdff58$a68c4d30$f3a4e790$@natasha.cc>
References: <01a001cdff58$a68c4d30$f3a4e790$@natasha.cc>
Message-ID: <510D05FF.7020409@aleph.se>

On 31/01/2013 02:14, Natasha Vita-More wrote:
>
> Human-computer interaction is one field I am teaching two classes in 
> (theory and prototyping) and I'd like to ask you all for any insights, 
> suggestions, latest theories, methods, etc. that would be helpful to 
> these undergrad students who want to their work at a master's level.
>

Hmm, HCI is tricky. When I took it it was heavy on cognitive science 
models, which was frankly rather boring. At the same time it borders on 
design and very creative topics.

I think a key skill is being able to critique designs. To actually take 
something, play around with it, and then not just tell whether it feels 
good or bad (useful/useless, easy/hard, whatever) but to articulate 
*what* makes it feel like that. This is not just good for feedback and 
commentary, but for discovering how things can be made better. Even if 
you don't know how to fix a problem, by formulating it clearly others 
can help - and often even formulating it tends to resolve what should be 
done.

Norman was my start too, he is good. I am also a great fan of Edward 
Tufte (who isn't?), and since so much of the complexity of current 
computers is about showing (or not showing) information he is quite 
relevant to HCI. A lot of the wild and wonderful designs found in the 
archives of http://infosthetics.com/ and http://benfry.com/projects/ 
ought to be inspirational.

Finally, something I think was totally lacking when I studied HCI and I 
hope has become relevant now: motivation. Looking at the user interfaces 
of Bryce or World of Warcraft shows something that would have failed all 
the criteria discussed: too messy and idiosyncratic. Yet people learn 
them, and become very good at using them. Why? Because they are 
delightful to use, or the program itself allows you to do something 
highly motivating. The work on gamification (and MacGonigals work on 
ARGs) suggests to me that if you make the interfaces motivate users in 
the right way the strangest interface will be learnable. So maybe the 
core issue is not to fix the epistemic/perceptual aspects but the 
emotional and motivational: if your software has the right built in 
motivators (and demotivators) it will drive the right kind of learning 
and use. But whether there is a good theory for this yet, I do not know. 
Maybe the game design literature is worth a glance.

(Hmm, having an active wordcount in the lower border of a window might 
actually be a simple gamification of writing, rewarding me with "points" 
for writing... maybe it should also list the number of misspellings - 
wordprocessing as a game!)

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Feb  2 13:16:05 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 13:16:05 +0000
Subject: [ExI] The Field of HCI
In-Reply-To: <510D05FF.7020409@aleph.se>
References: <01a001cdff58$a68c4d30$f3a4e790$@natasha.cc>
 <510D05FF.7020409@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:26 PM, Anders Sandberg  wrote:

> Finally, something I think was totally lacking when I studied HCI and I hope
> has become relevant now: motivation. Looking at the user interfaces of Bryce
> or World of Warcraft shows something that would have failed all the criteria
> discussed: too messy and idiosyncratic. Yet people learn them, and become
> very good at using them. Why? Because they are delightful to use, or the
> program itself allows you to do something highly motivating. The work on
> gamification (and MacGonigals work on ARGs) suggests to me that if you make
> the interfaces motivate users in the right way the strangest interface will
> be learnable. So maybe the core issue is not to fix the epistemic/perceptual
> aspects but the emotional and motivational: if your software has the right
> built in motivators (and demotivators) it will drive the right kind of
> learning and use. But whether there is a good theory for this yet, I do not
> know. Maybe the game design literature is worth a glance.
>
>

I find it interesting that Norman doesn't much like the latest fad for
'gestural' interfaces. I also find the idea of waving my hands about
instead of pressing a button to be a step backwards. Just because the
new touch sensitive screens allow you to do new things doesn't mean
that you should do them. The poor sales of Windows 8 and Surface
tablets may indicate that the public doesn't really like it much
either.

Norman has an essay up here -

'Gestural Interfaces: A Step Backwards In Usability' Sept 2010'

Quote:

There are several important fundamental principles of interaction
design that are completely independent of technology:
?       Visibility (also called perceived affordances or signifiers)
?       Feedback
?       Consistency (also known as standards)
?       Non-destructive operations (hence the importance of undo)
?       Discoverability: All operations can be discovered by
systematic exploration of menus
?       Scalability. The operation should work on all screen sizes,
small and large.
?       Reliability. Operations should work. Period. And events should
not happen randomly.

All these are rapidly disappearing from the toolkit of designers,
aided, we must emphasize, by the weird design guidelines issued by
Apple, Google, and Microsoft.
------------

BillK

From tech101 at gmail.com  Sat Feb  2 13:58:28 2013
From: tech101 at gmail.com (Adam A. Ford)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 00:58:28 +1100
Subject: [ExI] Future Day! March 1st
Message-ID: 

In one month the second Future Day will be upon us.  http://futureday.org
Help make this a ritual!

Is there anyone here who would like to make an evening of it in their
respective locations?
It could be a mini conf with speakers and panels.  Or a discussion group
focusing on keeping new years resolutions on track.   A session on
foresight in a meeting at work with colleagues.  Or perhaps a future-themed
party or games night!

There are plenty of good things to celebrate in hope for a great future!

Also, if you have an endorsing quote you would like to provide let us know!

Kind regards,

Adam A. Ford
Humanity+ Global Board Member, Humanity+ @ San Francisco Co-Chair
Humanity+ Australia, Humanity+ @ Melbourne Summit Chair
 Singularity Summit Australia Chair

Mob: +61 421 979 977 | Email:  tech101 at gmail.com

  Humanity+ @San Francisco 1-2 Dec 2012
*
*

Humanity+  | Singularity Summit
Australia |
Facebook|
Twitter  |
Youtube

"A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move
toward higher levels." ("Atomic Education Urged by Albert Einstein", New
York Times, 25 May 1946)

Please consider the environment before printing this email

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From anders at aleph.se  Sat Feb  2 14:44:04 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 14:44:04 +0000
Subject: [ExI] The Field of HCI
In-Reply-To: 
References: <01a001cdff58$a68c4d30$f3a4e790$@natasha.cc>
 <510D05FF.7020409@aleph.se>

Message-ID: <510D2634.40704@aleph.se>

On 02/02/2013 13:16, BillK wrote:
> I find it interesting that Norman doesn't much like the latest fad for
> 'gestural' interfaces. I also find the idea of waving my hands about
> instead of pressing a button to be a step backwards.

Yes, he has a point. When gestures are no longer direct manipulation of 
the objects or commonly understood invocations of their powers (like 
pressing a button) they are just as hopeless and mysterious as keyboard 
shortcuts. Which are not necessarily *bad*, but shouldn't be the core 
for how your software works.

I like using StrokeIt to control my Windows programs - it is so 
convenient to navigate the browser using mouse movements rather than 
going over to the menu, a button or the keyboard, but the set of 
gestures I use is small and super-common (go back, forward, close tab) 
so it is easy to learn it.

Another interesting design pattern is Skeumorphism: making something 
look like an everyday object, which should give you a hint of what it is 
supposed to do. Except that often they just become mysterious because 
the metaphor is weak or aged (who has a trashcan on your desktop? what 
does the bird sitting on the branch icon do? what the heck is a tape 
recorder?)

>   Just because the
> new touch sensitive screens allow you to do new things doesn't mean
> that you should do them.
This goes for all design. Just because you can do it doesn't mean it is 
good. If you are the first to do it, you will at least reap some 
interest, but it is still no guarantee of quality.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University

From msd001 at gmail.com  Sat Feb  2 14:20:08 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 09:20:08 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The Field of HCI
In-Reply-To: <510D05FF.7020409@aleph.se>
References: <01a001cdff58$a68c4d30$f3a4e790$@natasha.cc>
 <510D05FF.7020409@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 7:26 AM, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
> I think a key skill is being able to critique designs. To actually take
> something, play around with it, and then not just tell whether it feels good
> or bad (useful/useless, easy/hard, whatever) but to articulate *what* makes
> it feel like that. This is not just good for feedback and commentary, but

Maybe it's not all the way to rare, but certainly an uncommon skill.
A majority of project planning is getting enough detail from the
customer/consumer to know what they're actually requesting.  When I
find users who clearly describe as-is and to-be, I give them top
priority as a reward.  You might expect this to catch-on, but it
doesn't.

> program itself allows you to do something highly motivating. The work on
> gamification (and MacGonigals work on ARGs) suggests to me that if you make
> the interfaces motivate users in the right way the strangest interface will
> be learnable. So maybe the core issue is not to fix the epistemic/perceptual
> aspects but the emotional and motivational: if your software has the right
> built in motivators (and demotivators) it will drive the right kind of
> learning and use. But whether there is a good theory for this yet, I do not
> know. Maybe the game design literature is worth a glance.

I wish I had more to add than "+1" or "like" but those signals are the
basic vote-mechanism of social media.  So on this sentiment:  Yes!

> (Hmm, having an active wordcount in the lower border of a window might
> actually be a simple gamification of writing, rewarding me with "points" for
> writing... maybe it should also list the number of misspellings -
> wordprocessing as a game!)

What would that do to the quality/content of the actual writing?

From eugen at leitl.org  Sat Feb  2 15:46:37 2013
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 16:46:37 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Field of HCI
In-Reply-To: <510D2634.40704@aleph.se>
References: <01a001cdff58$a68c4d30$f3a4e790$@natasha.cc>
 <510D05FF.7020409@aleph.se>

 <510D2634.40704@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <20130202154637.GY6172@leitl.org>

On Sat, Feb 02, 2013 at 02:44:04PM +0000, Anders Sandberg wrote:

> Yes, he has a point. When gestures are no longer direct manipulation of  
> the objects or commonly understood invocations of their powers (like  
> pressing a button) they are just as hopeless and mysterious as keyboard  

The major difference is that properly designed keyboard shortcuts
(think vi, not emacs) are ergonomic, while gestures will give
you gorilla arms from hell.

> shortcuts. Which are not necessarily *bad*, but shouldn't be the core  
> for how your software works.
>
> I like using StrokeIt to control my Windows programs - it is so  
> convenient to navigate the browser using mouse movements rather than  
> going over to the menu, a button or the keyboard, but the set of  

There's a reason why people who know their stuff use tiling
window managers and shortcut everything, using tenkeyless
keyboards even without cursor keys, nevermind a rodent.

> gestures I use is small and super-common (go back, forward, close tab)  
> so it is easy to learn it.
>
> Another interesting design pattern is Skeumorphism: making something  
> look like an everyday object, which should give you a hint of what it is  
> supposed to do. Except that often they just become mysterious because  
> the metaphor is weak or aged (who has a trashcan on your desktop? what  
> does the bird sitting on the branch icon do? what the heck is a tape  
> recorder?)

From rtomek at ceti.pl  Sat Feb  2 19:05:08 2013
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 20:05:08 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ExI] The Field of HCI
In-Reply-To: 
References: <01a001cdff58$a68c4d30$f3a4e790$@natasha.cc>
 <510D05FF.7020409@aleph.se>

Message-ID: 

On Sat, 2 Feb 2013, BillK wrote:

[...]
> I find it interesting that Norman doesn't much like the latest fad for 
> 'gestural' interfaces. I also find the idea of waving my hands about 
> instead of pressing a button to be a step backwards. Just because the 
> new touch sensitive screens allow you to do new things doesn't mean that 
> you should do them. The poor sales of Windows 8 and Surface tablets may 
> indicate that the public doesn't really like it much either.

> Norman has an essay up here -
> 

Very interesting read. Myself I am not a huge enthusiast of current 
trends, and I stay reserved even to trends of past two decades :-).

I don't mean to convert anybody but just to give some kind of separate 
voice, here's brief description of my HCI.

I use Linux and on top of this, X Window System with FVWM windows manager. 
I configured them to the point where I really don't need a mouse so much. 
I start a lot of terminal emulators and emacs instances, so X works for me 
mostly as terminal multiplier. I could easily do without X, just switching 
consoles, but I already use screen and I have nothing against starting 
excess terminals, grouping them by means of virtual desktops, whereas with 
consoles I would have to content myself with only 20-60 of them, and 
poorly grouped. Poor grouping is not effective so I'd rather avoid this, 
even thou I usually only use 10-15-20 or so terminals on average day (this 
includes emacs windows).

I consider mouse to be an obstacle. I configured things so I don't have to 
click much, clicking takes too much time. Yes, really. And gestures are 
out of question. When I want to do something, I type in commands. When 
there is too many of them and/or it's going to be repeated, I write shell 
script. I see no way in which mouse, gestures and whatnot could beat this 
(I understand such claims to be PR BS and treat them as such). Maybe 
telepathic interface could. Especially if used for text typing and 
terminal selection.  But I still use a mouse for selecting terminals, with 
focus-follows-mouse feature - for this, mouse is great. And for copy-paste 
between terminals. For a while, I have no intention to use tiling WM, but 
maybe I'll try one day.

I don't KDE, I don't Gnome, I don't Windows. No dock. Menus on desktop - 
configured about decade ago, but rarely used nowadays. The only graphical 
program that I use daily is gkrellm, a hardware monitor. It is not ideal 
but works and gives me some dials to have a quick look on (temperatures, 
voltages, clocks, cpu & io activity, this kind of stuff). I also use Opera 
for browsing, but I could do without (youtube looks better with movies, 
but that is no priority).

All of this might look awkward but for me it is not. On the contrary, 
heavy reliance on GUI and mouse feels very awkward to me. Almost 
physically awkward - things simply don't fly when I have to use Windows. 
The choices I make wrt to interface have nothing to do with low hardware. 
I write this on 4 cpu, 12gig machine with 20'' lcd. There are better 
machines on desks of some people reading these words, but mine is not very 
bad either. At the same time, if there is such need ever, I could scale 
back to any reasonable hardware produced during last 30 years (but I could 
ever so easily scale up to any reasonable hw produced in the next 1000 
years - good luck doing the same with Windows). After all, my needs are 
simple - just a bunch of vt100 terminals or equivalent and few megabytes 
of ram to run emacs and Common Lisp - but I guess I could replace emacs 
with vim and still be good (after I crawl out of vim beginner's lair). The 
only pain would be the need to print all the pdfs I gather(ed). Anything 
else, including writing books full of pleasant pictures and equations, can 
be done on vt100. Actually, it can be done with punched cards if one is 
properly motivated.

I think my definition of functionality is very different from what 
mainstream says on this. But being mainstream is not a priority. Power is. 
Computer was invented to give me power. GUI was invented to take it away. 
Sounds like a joke, doesn't it? Think twice.

Computer, for me at least, is all about working with universe of abstract 
things. Numbers, strings - but also functions, structures and sets. 
Squeezing them to fit the idea of desk with stacks of paper and a trash 
(really? who keeps trash can on his desk?) sounds so debilitating. The 
same can be said about so called cyberspace, as pictured by the movies and 
adapted by designer mob. I mean, I like idea of design, and when I feel 
like relaxing I sometimes go to places like core77.com but really, 
flashing balls, stars, cyber-sky-scrapers? It is not the real meat, just 
some plastic lookalike. Most of the time, it looks as stupid as film about 
dating/love/something in which a guy goes on a date to restaurant and 
starts from filling a doll with some air to sit in front of him. I guess 
aliens would see no difference. I guess majority of humans are aliens in 
the world of computers, so they have no problem with bad design. They just 
learn to live with it.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **

From agrimes at speakeasy.net  Sat Feb  2 18:51:18 2013
From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes)
Date: Sat, 02 Feb 2013 13:51:18 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
Message-ID: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

http://www.infowars.com/government-and-top-university-studies-fluoride-lowers-iq-and-causes-other-health-problems/

http://www.fluoridealert.org/

-- 
E T F
N H E
D E D

Powers are not rights.

From mrjones2020 at gmail.com  Sat Feb  2 20:09:34 2013
From: mrjones2020 at gmail.com (J.R. Jones)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 15:09:34 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>
Message-ID: 

I'm interested in the viewpoints of this list, on this topic.

Is this conspiracy quackery...or is Fluoride something we should fear and
avoid.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Feb  2 20:30:44 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 20:30:44 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

Message-ID: 

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:09 PM, J.R. Jones wrote:
> I'm interested in the viewpoints of this list, on this topic.
>
> Is this conspiracy quackery...or is Fluoride something we should fear and
> avoid.
>

Quackery.

They only get support because of the poor science educational level of
your average American.

BillK

From spike66 at att.net  Sat Feb  2 20:39:40 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 12:39:40 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

Message-ID: <004701ce0185$6ce1d260$46a57720$@att.net>

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of J.R. Jones
Subject: Re: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.

>.I'm interested in the viewpoints of this list, on this topic.

>.Is this conspiracy quackery...or is Fluoride something we should fear and
avoid.

JR, your assignment is to investigate it, separate the silliness from the
serious references, report back what you find.  Be smart please.  I expect a
lot from you pal, being as you are one of the Jones boys.  {8-]

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From spike66 at att.net  Sat Feb  2 20:42:48 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 12:42:48 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

Message-ID: <004f01ce0185$dd8bae00$98a30a00$@att.net>

>... On Behalf Of BillK
Subject: Re: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 8:09 PM, J.R. Jones wrote:
> I'm interested in the viewpoints of this list, on this topic.
>
>>... Is this conspiracy quackery...or is Fluoride something we should fear
and avoid.
>

Quackery.
>...
>...

>...They only get support because of the poor science educational level of
your average American.

>...BillK
_______________________________________________

BillK the problem of low science education spreads beyond our borders.
Depending on how you interpret the numbers, much of Africa scores even lower
than the USA.  And they don't even fluoridate the water.

spike

From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Feb  2 12:51:08 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 12:51:08 +0000
Subject: [ExI] breakout culture (Was: ambition)
In-Reply-To: <510D0241.9020400@aleph.se>
References: 
 <50FF1102.2080908@aleph.se>

 <510BA439.4030702@aleph.se>

 <510D0241.9020400@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
> Yes, I am currently tuning them using late Roman/Medieval life tables from
> South Germany (Stettfeldt). I have life tables from hunter-gatherers, but it
> was the instability of these that got the project started (sometimes
> complaining aloud about having to add fudge factors to get reasonable
> results pays off! I actually asked "Is there an archeologist in the house?"
> and got a yes answer.)

> So, yes, hightech societies are likely far more stable than low-tech ones.
> But they might be hard to initially achieve, since they require a criticial
> size of population and knowledge with the right memes.
>
>

I think you have to distinguish between the number needed for group
survival and the much larger number needed to maintain a civilisation
and the required admin systems.

I've been watching several documentaries recently about the
disappearance of ancient civilisations and I get the impression that
their demise had little to do with the size of population.

Drought, flood, soil damage (erosion, over-use, etc.), famine, crop
failure, plagues, all over a long period, ended civilisations. A few
encountered large disasters (e.g. Crete). They could cope with short
events fine, by economising and some population reductions. Many had
extensive irrigation, storage and trade routes. But events like
100-year droughts were too much. The population shrank, the
civilisation collapsed and the survivors wandered off or survived in
small groups. Eventually conditions improved and large invading
nations from outside took over the land.

BillK

From msd001 at gmail.com  Sat Feb  2 20:32:34 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 15:32:34 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

Message-ID: 

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 3:09 PM, J.R. Jones  wrote:
> I'm interested in the viewpoints of this list, on this topic.
>
> Is this conspiracy quackery...or is Fluoride something we should fear and
> avoid.

I've been drinking well water over the last 4 years.  The dentist kept
telling me about soft spots in my teeth.  (apparently that's a
technical dental term)  I've recently opted for a brush-on fluoride
for the purpose of mineralizing the tooth enamel.  One tooth on a
"watch" 6 months ago was no longer watch-worthy.  I tried to find in
all the "fluoride is bad for you" something about this form of topical
application.  There was only a back-handed reference that fluoride in
drinking water doesn't have the same efficacy as topical application.

I don't know why anyone would have ever accepted chemicals being put
INTO their water.  We spend a fortune getting junk OUT of water.  At
this point I think it would disrupt the business-as-usual of Brita,
and the various water bottling companies to allow safe/clean water to
flow from the tap.  Want to bet on the outcome of that lobbying?
Follow the money.

I am much more concerned about what will soon be found my well water
as hydraulic fracturing (fracking) threatens to trade long-term
environmental damage for near-term profit.  I realize that's not what
this thread is about though, so I'll leave it at that.

From mrjones2020 at gmail.com  Sun Feb  3 02:07:20 2013
From: mrjones2020 at gmail.com (J.R. Jones)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 21:07:20 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

Message-ID: 

I can see the benefits of topical applications.  It's the water supply
thing that gets me.  I'm on a well, for the past 3 years.  So far no
problems.  But I brush regularly, and have strong teeth (33, never having
had a cavity in my life). The toothpaste tube says not to swallow the
stuff, how is it supposed to be safe in drinking water?  Because of low
amounts?  BS.  I'm tired of that argument.  "safe levels" my rear.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From spike66 at att.net  Sun Feb  3 05:46:16 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 21:46:16 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

Message-ID: <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of J.R. Jones
Sent: Saturday, February 02, 2013 6:07 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.

>.I can see the benefits of topical applications.  It's the water supply
thing that gets me.  I'm on a well, for the past 3 years.  So far no
problems.  But I brush regularly, and have strong teeth (33, never having
had a cavity in my life). The toothpaste tube says not to swallow the stuff,
how is it supposed to be safe in drinking water?  Because of low amounts?
BS.  I'm tired of that argument.  "safe levels" my rear.

JR, don't forget your assignment bud.  You brought it on yourself with the
original question.  Now enquiring minds want to know: have you been able to
find any references that look reliable or plausible that show fluoride in
the water is harmful?  Note: I am inclined to believe it is generally a bad
idea to add stuff to drinking water.  But enquiring minds want to know.  As
a coincidence, I have a dental appointment Monday, so I will ask my dentist
if he knows of any references or research.

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From painlord2k at libero.it  Sun Feb  3 11:47:27 2013
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 12:47:27 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: <004f01ce0185$dd8bae00$98a30a00$@att.net>
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <004f01ce0185$dd8bae00$98a30a00$@att.net>
Message-ID: <510E4E4F.4030805@libero.it>

Il 02/02/2013 21:42, spike ha scritto:

> BillK the problem of low science education spreads beyond our borders.
> Depending on how you interpret the numbers, much of Africa scores even lower
> than the USA.  And they don't even fluoridate the water.

Well, they fear their penins to retract inside the body or fall off
because of witches. Not this different, in the end.

Both are delusions fueled by ignorance and stupidity.

The government have already a tool to make people stupid: compulsive
education in public schools.

Mirco

From rtomek at ceti.pl  Sun Feb  3 15:31:02 2013
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 16:31:02 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ExI] Even more HCI
Message-ID: 

For what it's worth, I have stumbled upon this cathegory page on 
wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:History_of_human???computer_interaction

There seems to be quite a few old ideas, which not necessarilly had been 
realised to the fullest. Like Alan Kay's Dynabook:

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

I think in the past it was a given that computer came with some means to 
create software (the exact form of this functionality could differ but the 
important thing is, computer can change the way it operates in more 
radical way than flipping background picture). Nowadays the only given is 
a browser, I would say. Javascript in a browser is not given, so even this 
very bleak way of customizing behaviour cannot be counted on. I could give 
a name of a device, maybe two, which are close to useless because of this, 
even thou mainstream delights itself with new versions of it (now it is 5 
or something).

In other words, one could argue that longterm, computer will change into 
some kind of interactive tv. I.e., useless. Life is not about 
entertainment. Not mine. I am not a bonobo.

Anyway, here is a link to interview with Alan Kay:

http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1039523

I think it is worth a while, even for those who don't program.

Some musings on Dynabook:

http://openp2p.com/pub/a/p2p/2003/04/03/alan_kay.html

http://www.open.edu/openlearn/science-maths-technology/computing-and-ict/information-and-communication-technologies/why-the-iphone-makes-2008-seem-1968-all-ov

BTW, if I ever had any wish to switch into full graphical mode and stay 
there, it was because of Squeak, a Smalltalk implementation. I guess it is 
interesting both as programming environment and as a way to try new 
things, so perhaps the knowledge of its existence should be spread more.

Other than Squeak or something like this, all those graphical stuff is not 
worth the pain of using it. I mean mostly MS Windows but I guess (without 
trying) MacOS fits well, too.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Sun Feb  3 16:33:09 2013
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 08:33:09 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

Message-ID: <1359909189.59116.YahooMailNeo@web126203.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

I almost never drink tap water, though I live in an area where tap water is not fluoridated anyhow, though it is chlorinated. I agree with the point that adding stuff in is probably not good simply because we don't know the long range effects. Yes, too, there are benefits, such as, with chlorination, of removing pathogens, but no one I know is seriously suggesting we all slake water from the nearest muddy puddle.

And as for tooth decay, for years I've used tooth pasted without fluoride. No dental problems during that time and I do have dental exams and cleanings regularly.

Regards,

Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Sun Feb  3 16:38:41 2013
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 08:38:41 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: <510E4E4F.4030805@libero.it>
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <004f01ce0185$dd8bae00$98a30a00$@att.net> <510E4E4F.4030805@libero.it>
Message-ID: <1359909521.9745.YahooMailNeo@web126205.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

On Sunday, February 3, 2013 6:47 AM Mirco Romanato  wrote:
> The government have already a tool to make people stupid:
> compulsive education in public schools.

On that note, you might find this George H. Smith talk from 1985 interesting:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uyXGYM6XGA

It's longish, but note that he doesn't think the purpose of public education, in its inception or today, is really about making people smarter. If one agrees with him, then one might agree public education has been successful -- successful at making people into good subjects of the state. (And happily his talk, while it focuses on the States, also discusses other examples and the history of the idea going back to Ancient Greece.)

Regards,

Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun Feb  3 16:19:26 2013
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 11:19:26 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Alcor management
Message-ID: 

I found this on cryonet:

> 4.  I believe having a Board of Directors who does not answer to anyone
> else is not good for bringing out the best in Alcor's directors.  You can
> not expect the best work from those who are not held accountable.  Changing
> back to having the membership elect the Directors would help Alcor more
> than any other thing you could bring about

### Bad, bad idea. Alcor is (or should be) a business, not a democracy
or a cooperative.

Clients efficiently influence businesses by choosing between using
their services and paying for them, or going somewhere else - this is
the exit option. Most people exercise the pay or leave option in a way
that maximizes their utility, weighing both cost of service and its
quality versus competing offerings. They do that without knowing the
internal details of how the business works yet their choices still
force businesses to stay cheaper and better than their least efficient
competitor (this insight is the basis of marginal analysis). Business
managers either find out how to run their business efficiently enough,
or somebody else eventually will compete their clients' money away
from them, and this is a powerful incentive to search for the best
solutions.

A business that lets its paying customers directly control it with
voice (which is costless to use) is likely to act very inefficiently.
Clients usually do not know how to best run a business (it is not
*their* business, only a business they have business with), and
letting them dictate the details of how it is run will likely ruin it.

Rafal

From painlord2k at libero.it  Sun Feb  3 20:07:14 2013
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2013 21:07:14 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: <1359909189.59116.YahooMailNeo@web126203.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <1359909189.59116.YahooMailNeo@web126203.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <510EC372.8000907@libero.it>

Il 03/02/2013 17:33, Dan ha scritto:
> I almost never drink tap water, though I live in an area where tap water
> is not fluoridated anyhow, though it is chlorinated. I agree with the
> point that adding stuff in is probably not good simply because we don't
> know the long range effects. Yes, too, there are benefits, such as, with
> chlorination, of removing pathogens, but no one I know is seriously
> suggesting we all slake water from the nearest muddy puddle.
> 
> And as for tooth decay, for years I've used tooth pasted without
> fluoride. No dental problems during that time and I do have dental exams
> and cleanings regularly.

Many dental/bone problems come from diet.
There is no fluorination or other that can address this.

Like one teacher (at nurse school) told us, "it is not useful to give
aerosol therapy for make cough more fluid if the patient doesn't drink
enough"

Mirco

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun Feb  3 15:40:12 2013
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 10:40:12 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

Message-ID: 

On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:07 PM, J.R. Jones  wrote:

The toothpaste tube says not to swallow the stuff, how is it
> supposed to be safe in drinking water?  Because of low amounts?  BS.  I'm
> tired of that argument.  "safe levels" my rear.

### You think that it is not valid to claim there are safe levels of a
substance that is toxic at other, usually higher levels? Once a
poison, always a poison?

Rafal

From ablainey at aol.com  Mon Feb  4 01:20:07 2013
From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 20:20:07 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

Message-ID: <8CFD08CE694CDBC-8F0-7221C@webmail-m163.sysops.aol.com>

Both. There is far too much ill educated conspiracy out there but Fluoride isn't something I personally want to ingest daily.
Who gains from fluoridation ? 
Im not convinced it is a secret effort to dumb down the populous per se, most are plenty dumb enough already, its probably a bonus side effect. I do think that fluoridation is a small part of the ongoing plan for population reduction. Or rather to allow the population to reduce itself. "Im just going to put these nooses up here and if you are too stupid, crazy, thrill seaking, immoral to avoid walking into one and hang yourself, well thats just 21st century natural selection". .....(whistles and walks away).

We are surrounded by such nooses. Drink, drugs, smoking, food, dangerous sports, prescription meds, dangerous sexual practices . Reduction on the most part seems to be voluntary, but a few things such as nuerotoxins in the water which have effects like inhibiting sex drive and lowering fertility. Well they might be a useful thing to put in the water. Its not like governments have any aversion to deliberate chemical experimentation on the public is it.

Taking the tin foil hat off for a moment. I have previously stated that I am an advocate for Eugenics in theory. However I have always failed to see a morally acceptable method of population control other than not reproducing or informed choice suicide. That in mind I can easily imagine how some slightly more enthusiastic eugenics believers may see a random set of life shortening traps or infertility bombs set for the unwary as a morally arguable solution. How can they be blamed for people not educating themselves and avoiding such dangers? TBH Compared with some of the overt projects we have seen in recent history for the "greater good" it seems kind of tame.
I wonder what Kissinger is up to these days?

*Plausible* certainly not busted.

-----Original Message-----
From: J.R. Jones 
To: ExI chat list 
Sent: Sat, 2 Feb 2013 20:14
Subject: Re: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.

I'm interested in the viewpoints of this list, on this topic.

Is this conspiracy quackery...or is Fluoride something we should fear and avoid.

_______________________________________________
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  Mon Feb  4 02:54:14 2013
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan Ust)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 21:54:14 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

Message-ID: <25D2273E-BBF3-4F5C-9366-A97612B50F27@yahoo.com>

On Feb 3, 2013, at 10:40 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki  wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 2, 2013 at 9:07 PM, J.R. Jones  wrote:
> 
> The toothpaste tube says not to swallow the stuff, how is it
>> supposed to be safe in drinking water?  Because of low amounts?  BS.  I'm
>> tired of that argument.  "safe levels" my rear.
> 
> ### You think that it is not valid to claim there are safe levels of a
> substance that is toxic at other, usually higher levels? Once a
> poison, always a poison?

Just as many toxins don't have a linear response, they also don't have a dose independent response. In some cases, a little bit of a toxin might be far less harmful if not even beneficial, since the response mechanism is not overwhelmed. Think of oxygen, for instance. Seriously toxic, but try living without it right now.

But also think of the huge number of other toxins you're immersed and bathed in everyday. You don't necessarily experience much harm from them. Still, no reason to intentionally add a known toxin and extremely active substance into the water supply. (Even in the case of chlorine, it's great for killing pathogens, but it's probably better not to be drinking and breathing it because one has it in the water supply one drinks and bathes with.)

Regards,

Dan

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Feb  3 19:07:20 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2013 19:07:20 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>
Message-ID: 

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 5:46 AM, spike  wrote:
> JR, don?t forget your assignment bud.  You brought it on yourself with the
> original question.  Now enquiring minds want to know: have you been able to
> find any references that look reliable or plausible that show fluoride in
> the water is harmful?

That is actually quite a difficult task if you don't already have a
reasonable science / engineering education.

What search terms do you use?
A general google search will produce thousands of links to sound
science sites mixed in with anti-science sites. The sound science
sites tend to be boring reports where readers eyes rapidly glaze over.
On the other hand, the anti-science sites are exciting, with lots of
DANGER!, WARNING!, ACTION NEEDED NOW! signs. These fire off the
adrenaline responses in the human brain, make readers want to read
more, and there is no background knowledge to spot the misinformation.

People can try different search terms, different search engines, even
Google Scholar, but the sound science reports will still be hard work
for inexperienced readers.

A better route is probably to bookmark a list of skeptical sites like
snopes.com or quackwatch.com whose objective is to expose all the
frauds and hoaxes that infest the internet. Any frauds they find are
discussed in detail with lots of links to more information. At least
you will learn about the many techniques used to fool people.

BillK

From clementlawyer at gmail.com  Mon Feb  4 23:49:51 2013
From: clementlawyer at gmail.com (James Clement)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 18:49:51 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

Message-ID: 

A 2011 research paper: Fluoride in Drinking Water: Effect on Liver and
Kidney Function

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444522726004189

Fluoride is an essential trace element for human beings and animals;
however, high level of fluoride in drinking water is harmful to the living
system. Chronic fluoride intoxication causes damages to osseous tissue
(teeth and bone) and soft tissues (liver, kidney, brain, etc.). Liver and
kidney are the target organs markedly attacked by excessive amount of
fluoride. High doses of fluoride intake lead to changes of structure,
function, and metabolism in liver and kidney.

Best regards,

James
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From atymes at gmail.com  Mon Feb  4 23:59:10 2013
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 15:59:10 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

Message-ID: 

Re the subject line:

Yes, let us stop acting at length against anything that
seems scary but which we personally know little about.
Let us develop the habit, even instinct, to - whenever
we hear about something that scares us but is not an
immediate threat (i.e., not something we need to do
something about in the next hour) - research that
which disturbs us.  Let us check out snopes.com and
similar sources, that we might recognize Big Lies
when they are repeated, and thus inoculate ourselves
against them.

Let us exercise our intelligence, not our fears, when
these things come up.  Because just like our
muscles, whichever one we exercise shall grow, and
whichever we do not shall atrophy.  More intelligence
and less fear sounds like a good way to live to me.

From natasha at natasha.cc  Tue Feb  5 02:02:14 2013
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 19:02:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Book & Transhumanism Knowledge & Media Center - Science, Tech,
	Arts, Culture, Philosophy
Message-ID: <000001ce0344$d1c967e0$755c37a0$@natasha.cc>

Friends,

Max More and I have been working with our publisher Wiley-Blackwell to
produce what we hope will be a valuable contribution to transhumanism: The
Transhumanist Reader: Classical and Contemporary Essays on the Science,
Technology, and Philosophy of the Human Future, which contains 40 essays by
seminal thinkers. This book brings together the visionary zeal of extropy
and the analytics of scholarship. 

Here is what is being said: 

-Kevin Kelly, Senior Maverick for Wired: "We are in the process of upgrading
the human species, so we might as well do it with deliberation and
foresight. A good first step is this book, which collects the smartest
thinking available concerning the inevitable conflicts, challenges and
opportunities arising as we re-invent ourselves. It's a core text for anyone
making the future."

-Julian Savulescu, Uehiro Chair in Practical Ethics, University of
Oxford:"Transhumanism has moved from a fringe concern to a mainstream
academic movement with real intellectual credibility. This is a great taster
of some of the best emerging work. In the last 10 years, transhumanism has
spread not as a religion but as a creative rational endeavor."

-Edward Keller, Director, Center for Transformative Media, Parsons The New
School for Design: "The Transhumanist Reader is an important, provocative
compendium critically exploring the history, philosophy, and ethics of
transhumanism. The contributors anticipate crucial biopolitical, ecological
and planetary implications of a radically technologically enhanced
population."

-Sonia Arrison, Best-selling author of 100 Plus: How The Coming Age of
Longevity Will Change Everything: "This important book contains essays by
many of the top thinkers in the field of transhumanism. It's a must-read for
anyone interested in the future of humankind."

To accompany this book, we are building a knowledge center that covers the
book's content and links to the many great works of arts and culture. I
think it will have a strong position in the arts community (and with Michael
Masucci (who is here on this list!) and EZTV, Parsons, UAT, Singularity
University, and some of the major international arts festivals like GOGBOT,
Ars Electronica, Siggraph, etc. and the human-computer interaction (HCI)
events.

This knowledge and media center offers the simple yet poignant question: If
transhumanism, then what?  The possibilities of this question can spin our
minds into all sorts of extropic visions and into the depths of our
imagination. 

Onward!

Natasha

Natasha Vita-More, PhD

Professor, University of Advancing Technology

Chairman, Humanity+

Co-Founder, Institute for Transhumanism

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Tue Feb  5 03:49:15 2013
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 19:49:15 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

Message-ID: <1360036155.74147.YahooMailNeo@web126202.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

On Monday, February 4, 2013 6:59 PM Adrian Tymes  wrote:
> Re the subject line:
>
> Yes, let us stop acting at length against anything that
> seems scary but which we personally know little about.

I do agree about not getting overly upset about scare stories. I think an excellent thing to do in this vein is to, for the most part, ignore almost all "news" in all forms of media since there's always a bias toward the sensation and toward scare stories. And since it seems the human mind is biased toward focusing on such things and focusing on narratives, as opposed to digesting large amounts of data, seeking broader perspectives, etc., there's a good reason to not dose oneself with news. In fact, one has to be trained to avoid these biases, which is generally what learning in various sciences and humanities attempts to do, when it's at its best, no?

> Let us develop the habit, even instinct, to - whenever
> we hear about something that scares us but is not an
> immediate threat (i.e., not something we need to do
> something about in the next hour) - research that
> which disturbs us.? Let us check out snopes.com and
> similar sources, that we might recognize Big Lies
> when they are repeated, and thus inoculate ourselves
> against them.

That's only good if you trust them, but it's not a bad idea, IMO.

> Let us exercise our intelligence, not our fears, when
> these things come up.? Because just like our
> muscles, whichever one we exercise shall grow, and
> whichever we do not shall atrophy.? More intelligence
> and less fear sounds like a good way to live to me.

That said, what's funny here is James Clement did post the link to a paper on this topic that also links to other papers on the same. I think the subject line might be off, but I would find it strange if fluoride wasn't toxic... And the whole idea of fluoridating seems like the worst form of risk-taking: adding something new into the general water supply should always be something that has to bear the burden of proof -- rather than the other way 'round. It's kind of like if you were in the Amazon jungle and looking for a snack, saw some plant, didn't know much about it, then remember, "Ah, I haven't read any research articles or heard any clinical studies on this plant, why don't I just put some salad dressing on it and have lunch? And why don't I, while I'm at it, smear it all over my skin? After all, there's no reports of it being dangerous?"

This is not to support the scare story mentality or even to argue for the precautionary principle -- though it might seem like the latter. But before putting a substance into general use, even at really low doses, it seems reasonable to study the problems first rather than just do it and then later try to figure out if it's harmful -- whether it lowers IQs (whether that's a bad thing or even matters), makes some sprout fairy wings, or whatever.

Regards,

Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From agrimes at speakeasy.net  Mon Feb  4 23:56:03 2013
From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes)
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2013 18:56:03 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

Message-ID: <51104A93.4010606@speakeasy.net>

James Clement wrote:
> A 2011 research paper: Fluoride in Drinking Water: Effect on Liver and
> Kidney Function
>
> http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780444522726004189
>
> Fluoride is an essential trace element for human beings and animals;
> however, high level of fluoride in drinking water is harmful to the
> living system. Chronic fluoride intoxication causes damages to osseous
> tissue (teeth and bone) and soft tissues (liver, kidney, brain, etc.).
> Liver and kidney are the target organs markedly attacked by excessive
> amount of fluoride. High doses of fluoride intake lead to changes of
> structure, function, and metabolism in liver and kidney.

=)

I love how this thread is developing.

One technical note here. Be aware that there are several types of 
fluoride. There is calcium fluoride that can be a nutrient in some 
limited quantities and there is sodium fluoride that is put into the 
water supply which is a toxin. It should also be noted that what is 
delivered to the water companies is actually a mess of toxic waste 
including depleted uranium and other substances.

-- 
E T F
N H E
D E D

Powers are not rights.

From atymes at gmail.com  Tue Feb  5 04:50:48 2013
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 4 Feb 2013 20:50:48 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: <51104A93.4010606@speakeasy.net>
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

 <51104A93.4010606@speakeasy.net>
Message-ID: 

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Alan Grimes  wrote:
> James Clement wrote:
> It should also be noted that what is delivered to the water companies
> is actually a mess of toxic waste including depleted uranium and other
> substances.

That is quite a charge.  Evidence?

From clementlawyer at gmail.com  Tue Feb  5 07:36:46 2013
From: clementlawyer at gmail.com (James Clement)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 02:36:46 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

 <51104A93.4010606@speakeasy.net>

Message-ID: 

 Adrian Tymes  wrote:

> On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Alan Grimes  wrote:
> > James Clement wrote:
> > It should also be noted that what is delivered to the water companies
> > is actually a mess of toxic waste including depleted uranium and other
> > substances.
>
> That is quite a charge.  Evidence?
>

Please don't attribute those lines to me. I posted a scientific research
paper from PubMed for those who wanted to take the time to read such. I did
not comment on its content or the content of any previous remarks in this
thread.
Thanks,

James
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Feb  5 08:32:16 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 08:32:16 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: <1360036155.74147.YahooMailNeo@web126202.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

 <1360036155.74147.YahooMailNeo@web126202.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 3:49 AM, Dan wrote:

> That said, what's funny here is James Clement did post the link to a paper
> on this topic that also links to other papers on the same. I think the
> subject line might be off, but I would find it strange if fluoride wasn't
> toxic... And the whole idea of fluoridating seems like the worst form of
> risk-taking: adding something new into the general water supply should
> always be something that has to bear the burden of proof -- rather than the
> other way 'round.

My understanding is that that is exactly what they did.

Some areas naturally have trace amounts of fluoride in the water and
always have had. It was noticed that the people living there had less
tooth damage than other populations. So some national health
authorities started to add trace amounts of fluoride to their water to
protect the population. A small amount of fluoride was also added to
most toothpastes, but toothpaste is a luxury item for very poor
people, so a national water policy protected them.

Statistics on the benefits may have been affected by first world
countries changing their diets to to include lots of sweet, sticky,
sugary items. Without fluoride they probably wouldn't have any teeth
left at all.

BillK

From anders at aleph.se  Tue Feb  5 09:44:37 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 09:44:37 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

Message-ID: <5110D485.90207@aleph.se>

On 03/02/2013 19:07, BillK wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 5:46 AM, spike  wrote:
>> JR, don?t forget your assignment bud.  You brought it on yourself with the
>> original question.  Now enquiring minds want to know: have you been able to
>> find any references that look reliable or plausible that show fluoride in
>> the water is harmful?
> That is actually quite a difficult task if you don't already have a
> reasonable science / engineering education.
>
> What search terms do you use?

This is in my view the best response in this whole sorry thread. This 
points at a real and big problem: how do we get information "the last 
mile" to people who need it?

If I were to start on it, I would immediately go to PubMed, search for 
"fluoridation metareview", "fluorine water review" or "fluoridation 
epidemiology review", start checking the most recent papers, ignoring 
the ones from minor journals, deliberately looking at a few dissenting 
papers, maybe checking their references and so on. Of course I would 
google for Cochrane reviews. Eventually I would form an opinion.

However, this is totally non-obvious! PubMed is not well known, that you 
should look for reviews and metareviews is not obvious if you are not a 
practicing academic, and Cochrane - who's that? And reading these papers 
takes plenty of statistical and domain skills, besides normal critical 
thinking. I am fairly certain I could get the relevant stuff out these 
studies, but I know food epidemology studies just make my head spin.

No wonder people are fumbling around so much. Back in the fictional good 
old days there were respected authorities you could trust, but 1) we no 
longer trust them much, and 2) empirically most of the past respected 
authorities were unreliable. Not always bad, but clearly wrong in a lot 
of non-obvious ways. Snopes is partially a modern counterpart, 
stabilized by the presence of multiple minds. But there should be a 
better way of finding who the experts are within a domain. Imagine a 
search engine that told you to look at Cochrane reviews if you wanted 
medical info.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Feb  5 10:09:03 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 10:09:03 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: <5110D485.90207@aleph.se>
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

 <5110D485.90207@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:44 AM, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
> Snopes is partially a modern counterpart, stabilized by the presence
> of multiple minds. But there should be a better way of finding who the
> experts are within a domain. Imagine a search engine that told you to look
> at Cochrane reviews if you wanted medical info.
>
>

is a search engine that includes Cochrane reviews.
But that is only for medical and health information.

The problem of good searching of reliable sources still exists for
other domains.
'How to search' is an education in itself, especially as Google (and
others) are now editing their search results by secretive methods.
They claim the secrecy is for good reasons, to avoid people gaming
their search results. But the impression is that Google themselves may
be 'gaming' their search results to assist advertisers and downgrade
sites that they don't like.

And readers being educated enough to be able to read and understand
scientific papers is still a barrier to understanding.

BillK

From anders at aleph.se  Tue Feb  5 11:13:12 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 11:13:12 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

 <5110D485.90207@aleph.se>

Message-ID: <5110E948.8060206@aleph.se>

On 05/02/2013 10:09, BillK wrote:
>  is a search engine that includes 
> Cochrane reviews. But that is only for medical and health information.
I was looking for that for my post, thanks for finding it!

> The problem of good searching of reliable sources still exists for
> other domains. 'How to search' is an education in itself,

Yes. It is an important life skill right up there with reading, typing 
and Bayesian inference. And like the others it needs to be trained. Do 
we know any good training programs (for kids or adults) in searching?

I often bring up the importance of connoisseurship - you might not be 
able to do science or carpentry, but you can at least tell whether 
something is a good paper or a good table. Part of why we should acquire 
a wide education is in order to become connoisseurs of many things, so 
we can act as filters for ourselves and friends.

> especially as Google (and
> others) are now editing their search results by secretive methods.
> They claim the secrecy is for good reasons, to avoid people gaming
> their search results. But the impression is that Google themselves may
> be 'gaming' their search results to assist advertisers and downgrade
> sites that they don't like.

Bah, that is just typical human conspiracy thinking (looking for selfish 
intentions and then thinking them to be paramount) obscuring a much 
bigger problem: there is going to be bias because of the basic search 
system. Search systems that handle language or different sources 
differently will give you far more subtle and insidious biases. A search 
system where ranking is roughly proportional to popularity will show you 
what a mainstream thinks, while one based on other network properties 
will show you biases that we do not even have a name for (imagine 
searching using pagerank based on the second or third eigenvector of the 
web adjacency graph instead of the first - there are parallel web 
universes out there!) Good search skills take the mechanical and human 
biases into account.

In a world where Google just ran a straight pagerank and everybody else 
gamed them, you would have exactly the same problem with hidden biases 
since now you would not know what the SEO people were doing.

> And readers being educated enough to be able to read and understand
> scientific papers is still a barrier to understanding.

Not to mention that most papers are boring and badly written. Part of it 
is the fault of science education, which doesn't drill us in academic 
language skills (or the enjoyment of writing). But part of the blame is 
the cultural consensus of how a paper "must" be written, which produces 
the endless row of IMRAD-organised papers in passive third person voice 
where p-values are mentioned but not effect sizes.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Feb  5 12:49:44 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 12:49:44 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: <5110E948.8060206@aleph.se>
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

 <5110D485.90207@aleph.se>

 <5110E948.8060206@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 11:13 AM, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
> Yes. It is an important life skill right up there with reading, typing and
> Bayesian inference. And like the others it needs to be trained. Do we know
> any good training programs (for kids or adults) in searching?
>
>

Most university libraries should offer research guides to students.
Some universities also run web search workshops for students. They
know it is an important and necessary skill for students.

 is one
student guide that has been put online. Unfortunately web guides can
get out of date, as search engines and web sites close down and new
ones appear.
It requires attention to keep up to date. This was going to be a quick
reply until I got distracted reading about new search engines and
techniques.  :)

Searching is becoming more and more specialised in order to get the
best results. Many domains now have their own search engines to avoid
clutter with irrelevant results. Google search itself can be
customised in thousands of ways.

BillK

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Feb  5 13:10:08 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 05:10:08 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

 <51104A93.4010606@speakeasy.net>

Message-ID: <001b01ce03a2$202a2020$607e6060$@att.net>

Owww, unfortunate trimming.  Note that it was not James Clement who made the
comment about toxic waste, it was Alan Grimes.

Do take care with attributions, thanks.

spike

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Sent: Monday, February 04, 2013 8:51 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.

On Mon, Feb 4, 2013 at 3:56 PM, Alan Grimes  wrote:
> James Clement wrote:
> It should also be noted that what is delivered to the water companies 
> is actually a mess of toxic waste including depleted uranium and other 
> substances.

That is quite a charge.  Evidence?
_______________________________________________
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 Feb  5 13:32:54 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 05:32:54 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: <5110D485.90207@aleph.se>
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

 <5110D485.90207@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <001c01ce03a5$4e2f1a40$ea8d4ec0$@att.net>

>... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg

>...This points at a real and big problem: how do we get information "the last mile" to people who need it?

--
Anders Sandberg,

The modern version of this question would properly ask about the last half meter.  All the right answers to everything are as close as our computer screens, yet it is crazy difficult to distinguish the high quality information from the mountains of garbage.  Back in the days when we geeks used to do our proto-web surfing in a library using paper books, one could make a first level assessment of the quality of the information by the binding.  We knew what encyclopedias looked like, and could easily tell the difference between those and advertisements found in the National Enquirer.  You really could judge a book by its cover, to some limited but important extent.

Now good and bad information looks a lot more similar, and there are orders of magnitude more of both.

I think this problem is what Brent was getting at with the canonizer.  Even with a science background, I don't know for sure how to get to the state of the art consensus on fluoride in drinking water.  My dentist today said the dental community is in favor of it.

spike

From msd001 at gmail.com  Tue Feb  5 14:27:26 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:27:26 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: <001c01ce03a5$4e2f1a40$ea8d4ec0$@att.net>
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

 <5110D485.90207@aleph.se> <001c01ce03a5$4e2f1a40$ea8d4ec0$@att.net>
Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:32 AM, spike  wrote:
> I think this problem is what Brent was getting at with the canonizer.  Even with a science background, I don't know for sure how to get to the state of the art consensus on fluoride in drinking water.  My dentist today said the dental community is in favor of it.

I bet your doctor also advises a "healthy" high-fiber diet of grains,
legumes, and milk too.

I bet your mechanic advises you to have your oil replaced every 4828
kilometers too.

Sometimes I wish I wasn't so cynical; then I remember why it's a good idea.

From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Feb  5 16:03:08 2013
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 17:03:08 +0100
Subject: [ExI] please consider joining OpenWorm
Message-ID: <20130205160308.GX6172@leitl.org>

See http://www.openworm.org/

http://www.openworm.org/get_involved.html

Coder

We need your skills! No matter what programming language you are used to we
will find a place for you! We are building different software components
which require different kinds of expertise. 

Geppetto, our simulation platform, is written in Java and leverages
technologies like OSGi, Spring Framework, OpenCL and Maven. Geppetto's
frontend is written using THREE.js and WebGL. Back-end / front-end
communication happens via JSON messages through WebSocket. The engine runs on
on Eclipse Virgo WebServer deployed on an Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud Linux
instance. Sound familiar? Like to help? Contact us! 

Our most popular scripting language is Python, which we use for many
purposes, from hacking and managing documents quickly to interfacing with
neuro-informatics resources. Even our optimisation engine is written in
Python. If you have experience with it you could help the project in a number
of ways, so please contact us!

Scientist

Dear fellow scientist, do you work with C. elegans in your lab? Do you work
with optogenetics? Do you write computational models for neurons? Are you an
expert in connectomics? Do you work with fluid dynamics simulations? Do you
work with computational models for chemical diffusion? Do you have experience
with numerical methods for solving cable equations? Do you think that you are
working on something that we could be interested in? 

If the answer to any of the above questions is yes and you would like to help
us please contact us!

Writer

So you are a writer! Whether you are a novelist, a blogger or a technical
writer we could use a hand. Communication is fundamental for us and we try
our best to clearly convey our goal at OpenWorm. We want to make people aware
of the importance of what we are trying to do. Get in touch with us by
sending some samples of your writing and describe in what way you would like
to contribute! 

Also if you are writing a blog post or an article about the project feel free
to ask us for any material like our logo or some sexy worm graphics. We would
be more than happy to help you!

Artist

We love beautiful things. We always make an extra effort to make things look
as cool as they can be. Are you a graphic designer? Do you draw or do you
make awesome videos? We need you. We love to inspire people and we believe
art is the best way to do it.

If you would like to help out please send us some examples from your
portfolio and tell us how you would like to use your talent. If you can't
think of anything still get in touch with us, we'll figure something out
together!

WebMaster

Do you have experience as a WebMaster? Did you spot that we built our website
with Bootstrap? Do you speak javascript?

Mantaining our web site is an important job and we could use a hand. If you
would like to help us, contact us and link to some of the websites you have
worked on. Also feel free to give us any feedback on usability of this
website; we like to constantly raise the bar!

Philanthropist

Do you share our vision? Do you believe that to accelerate drug discovery we
need better predictive models for biology? Are you an advocate of open
science? 

OpenWorm is not supported by traditional research grants. Everything that was
done so far happened thanks to the passion of our volunteers. Imagine how
fast we could accelerate our development with your support. 

If you are interested in helping to fund OpenWorm or partner with us please
contact us. We need your help.

Curious citizen

One thing we need more than anything is for people to know about us. Getting
visibility for the project will help us attract attention, raise awareness
and ultimately reach our goal faster. 

If you would like to help us you can spread the word with your family and
friends and explain them how a biological accurate simulation of a tiny worm
could help a lot to accelerate the cure of diseases. You can also tell your
geek friends how it would be totally cool to have a virtual worm living
inside your computer. 

Also if there is anything you think you could help us with which doesn't fall
in any of the above categories please contact us, we would love to hear from
you!

From atymes at gmail.com  Tue Feb  5 17:54:08 2013
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 09:54:08 -0800
Subject: [ExI] please consider joining OpenWorm
In-Reply-To: <20130205160308.GX6172@leitl.org>
References: <20130205160308.GX6172@leitl.org>
Message-ID: 

> Building the first digital life form. Open source.

This claim would be laughable if it was what they truly
meant.  There have been scads and scads of "digital life
forms", including some detailed single-cell-organism
simulators.

What they appear to be doing instead is a highly detailed,
open source model of a worm (c. elegans).

They need a better catchphrase, or anyone who's been
around the Web long enough to be of much use to them
may well think they are yet another naive effort and
click away without exploring further.

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 8:03 AM, Eugen Leitl  wrote:
>
> See http://www.openworm.org/
>
> http://www.openworm.org/get_involved.html
>
> Coder
>
> We need your skills! No matter what programming language you are used to we
> will find a place for you! We are building different software components
> which require different kinds of expertise.
>
> Geppetto, our simulation platform, is written in Java and leverages
> technologies like OSGi, Spring Framework, OpenCL and Maven. Geppetto's
> frontend is written using THREE.js and WebGL. Back-end / front-end
> communication happens via JSON messages through WebSocket. The engine runs on
> on Eclipse Virgo WebServer deployed on an Amazon Elastic Compute Cloud Linux
> instance. Sound familiar? Like to help? Contact us!
>
> Our most popular scripting language is Python, which we use for many
> purposes, from hacking and managing documents quickly to interfacing with
> neuro-informatics resources. Even our optimisation engine is written in
> Python. If you have experience with it you could help the project in a number
> of ways, so please contact us!
>
> Scientist
>
> Dear fellow scientist, do you work with C. elegans in your lab? Do you work
> with optogenetics? Do you write computational models for neurons? Are you an
> expert in connectomics? Do you work with fluid dynamics simulations? Do you
> work with computational models for chemical diffusion? Do you have experience
> with numerical methods for solving cable equations? Do you think that you are
> working on something that we could be interested in?
>
> If the answer to any of the above questions is yes and you would like to help
> us please contact us!
>
> Writer
>
> So you are a writer! Whether you are a novelist, a blogger or a technical
> writer we could use a hand. Communication is fundamental for us and we try
> our best to clearly convey our goal at OpenWorm. We want to make people aware
> of the importance of what we are trying to do. Get in touch with us by
> sending some samples of your writing and describe in what way you would like
> to contribute!
>
> Also if you are writing a blog post or an article about the project feel free
> to ask us for any material like our logo or some sexy worm graphics. We would
> be more than happy to help you!
>
> Artist
>
> We love beautiful things. We always make an extra effort to make things look
> as cool as they can be. Are you a graphic designer? Do you draw or do you
> make awesome videos? We need you. We love to inspire people and we believe
> art is the best way to do it.
>
> If you would like to help out please send us some examples from your
> portfolio and tell us how you would like to use your talent. If you can't
> think of anything still get in touch with us, we'll figure something out
> together!
>
> WebMaster
>
> Do you have experience as a WebMaster? Did you spot that we built our website
> with Bootstrap? Do you speak javascript?
>
> Mantaining our web site is an important job and we could use a hand. If you
> would like to help us, contact us and link to some of the websites you have
> worked on. Also feel free to give us any feedback on usability of this
> website; we like to constantly raise the bar!
>
> Philanthropist
>
> Do you share our vision? Do you believe that to accelerate drug discovery we
> need better predictive models for biology? Are you an advocate of open
> science?
>
> OpenWorm is not supported by traditional research grants. Everything that was
> done so far happened thanks to the passion of our volunteers. Imagine how
> fast we could accelerate our development with your support.
>
> If you are interested in helping to fund OpenWorm or partner with us please
> contact us. We need your help.
>
> Curious citizen
>
> One thing we need more than anything is for people to know about us. Getting
> visibility for the project will help us attract attention, raise awareness
> and ultimately reach our goal faster.
>
> If you would like to help us you can spread the word with your family and
> friends and explain them how a biological accurate simulation of a tiny worm
> could help a lot to accelerate the cure of diseases. You can also tell your
> geek friends how it would be totally cool to have a virtual worm living
> inside your computer.
>
> Also if there is anything you think you could help us with which doesn't fall
> in any of the above categories please contact us, we would love to hear from
> you!
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

From atymes at gmail.com  Tue Feb  5 18:55:08 2013
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 10:55:08 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Let's stop lowering our IQs.
In-Reply-To: <001b01ce03a2$202a2020$607e6060$@att.net>
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

 <51104A93.4010606@speakeasy.net>

 <001b01ce03a2$202a2020$607e6060$@att.net>
Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:10 AM, spike  wrote:
> Owww, unfortunate trimming.  Note that it was not James Clement who made the
> comment about toxic waste, it was Alan Grimes.
>
> Do take care with attributions, thanks.

Ach.  Yeah - sorry about that.

From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Feb  5 19:25:09 2013
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 20:25:09 +0100
Subject: [ExI] please consider joining OpenWorm
In-Reply-To: 
References: <20130205160308.GX6172@leitl.org>

Message-ID: <20130205192509.GD6172@leitl.org>

On Tue, Feb 05, 2013 at 09:54:08AM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> > Building the first digital life form. Open source.
> 
> This claim would be laughable if it was what they truly
> meant.  There have been scads and scads of "digital life
> forms", including some detailed single-cell-organism
> simulators.

Don't be a hater. C. elegans hasn't been done yet.

> What they appear to be doing instead is a highly detailed,
> open source model of a worm (c. elegans).

Why, yes. Isn't that exciting?

> They need a better catchphrase, or anyone who's been

Hey, you know what, they're looking for autors!
Patches are accepted. Open source, join the fun.

> around the Web long enough to be of much use to them
> may well think they are yet another naive effort and
> click away without exploring further.

From anders at aleph.se  Tue Feb  5 19:50:29 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 19:50:29 +0000
Subject: [ExI] cynicism
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

 <5110D485.90207@aleph.se> <001c01ce03a5$4e2f1a40$ea8d4ec0$@att.net>

Message-ID: <51116285.6030202@aleph.se>

On 05/02/2013 14:27, Mike Dougherty wrote:
> Sometimes I wish I wasn't so cynical; then I remember why it's a good 
> idea.

You are just saying that to look good.

http://hanson.gmu.edu/metacynic.html

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Feb  5 20:09:43 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 20:09:43 +0000
Subject: [ExI] cynicism
In-Reply-To: <51116285.6030202@aleph.se>
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

 <5110D485.90207@aleph.se> <001c01ce03a5$4e2f1a40$ea8d4ec0$@att.net>

 <51116285.6030202@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 7:50 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> You are just saying that to look good.
>
> http://hanson.gmu.edu/metacynic.html
>
>

The original Greek philosophers called Cynics were, of course, not
interested in looking good.
In fact, they had much in common with early Christians. Some have
argued that the sayings attributed to Jesus were greatly influenced by
the Cynic philosophy.

BillK

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Feb  5 21:00:21 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 13:00:21 -0800
Subject: [ExI] cynicism
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

 <5110D485.90207@aleph.se> <001c01ce03a5$4e2f1a40$ea8d4ec0$@att.net>

 <51116285.6030202@aleph.se>

Message-ID: <007401ce03e3$d06088d0$71219a70$@att.net>

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK
>

>...The original Greek philosophers called Cynics were, of course, not
interested in looking good.
In fact, they had much in common with early Christians. Some have argued
that the sayings attributed to Jesus were greatly influenced by the Cynic
philosophy.

BillK
_______________________________________________

Hey this could be a fun game.  Take the sayings of Jesus and add what he
would have said had he been a cynical bastard.  For instance:

Matthew 3:2 would have said:

And Jesus spake unto them saying, Repent ye, for the kingdom of heaven is at
hand.  I bet ye a shekel it will be boring as hell...

Matthew 19:14 would have said:

But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto
me.  Then we will send thy spawn over to grandma's house, and let her suffer
the little bastards until she is vexed unto death...

We have this idealized version of what a man should be, then hang the name
Jesus on that imaginary guy.  Think about it, that is exactly how Jesus
evolved, ja?  In nearly every graphic version, you see a guy with wavy brown
hair and blue eyes, definitely not what the actual man from Nazareth would
have looked like.

spike

From msd001 at gmail.com  Tue Feb  5 21:48:23 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 16:48:23 -0500
Subject: [ExI] cynicism
In-Reply-To: <51116285.6030202@aleph.se>
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

 <5110D485.90207@aleph.se> <001c01ce03a5$4e2f1a40$ea8d4ec0$@att.net>

 <51116285.6030202@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 2:50 PM, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
> On 05/02/2013 14:27, Mike Dougherty wrote:
>> Sometimes I wish I wasn't so cynical; then I remember why it's a good idea.
>
> You are just saying that to look good.
>
> http://hanson.gmu.edu/metacynic.html

Thanks for that.  Originally meant as a throwaway kind of tagline, it
got more response than anything I've posted lately.  :)

I'm curious though, especially in this group - does one "look good" as
an idealistic cynic or as a repentant cynic?

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Feb  5 21:25:41 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 21:25:41 +0000
Subject: [ExI] cynicism
In-Reply-To: <007401ce03e3$d06088d0$71219a70$@att.net>
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

 <5110D485.90207@aleph.se> <001c01ce03a5$4e2f1a40$ea8d4ec0$@att.net>

 <51116285.6030202@aleph.se>

 <007401ce03e3$d06088d0$71219a70$@att.net>
Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 9:00 PM, spike  wrote:
> Hey this could be a fun game.  Take the sayings of Jesus and add what he
> would have said had he been a cynical bastard.
>
> We have this idealized version of what a man should be, then hang the name
> Jesus on that imaginary guy.  Think about it, that is exactly how Jesus
> evolved, ja?  In nearly every graphic version, you see a guy with wavy brown
> hair and blue eyes, definitely not what the actual man from Nazareth would
> have looked like.
>
>

You mean like.....

John 2:7 Jesus saith unto them, Fill the waterpots with water. And
they filled them up to the brim.
Then Jesus said, Now you can sod off. I'll look after these now.

BillK

From msd001 at gmail.com  Tue Feb  5 21:55:42 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 16:55:42 -0500
Subject: [ExI] please consider joining OpenWorm
In-Reply-To: 
References: <20130205160308.GX6172@leitl.org>

Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 12:54 PM, Adrian Tymes  wrote:
> They need a better catchphrase, or anyone who's been
> around the Web long enough to be of much use to them
> may well think they are yet another naive effort and
> click away without exploring further.

Web, Open Source, Worm

Name three things that lead hackers to do bad things

fwiw, I'm not a hater - but that was my first thought on Open Source Worms

From sparge at gmail.com  Tue Feb  5 22:37:58 2013
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 17:37:58 -0500
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
Message-ID: 

http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/05/worlds-largest-prime-number-discovered/

If diamonds are a girl?s best friend, prime numbers are a mathematician?s.

And Curtis Cooper at the University of Central Missouri in Warrensburg
has just found the biggest, shiniest diamond of them all.

As part of the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search (GIMPS), a
computer program that networks PCs worldwide to collectively hunt for
a special type of prime number, Cooper discovered the largest prime
number yet late last month: a beast with 17,425,170 digits.

The number -- 2 multiplied by itself 57,885,161 times, written
mathematically as 257,885,161-1 -- is the first prime discovered in
four years.

Though there is little mathematical value to finding a single new
prime, these rare numbers are prized in their own right by some. "It's
sort of like finding a diamond," Caldwell told New Scientist. "For
some reason people decide they like diamonds and so they have a value.
People like these large primes and so they also have a value."

You can see an abbreviated version of the new prime number, or
download all 17,425,170 digits in a massive, 22MB text file.

Prime numbers, which are divisible only by themselves and one, have
little mathematical importance. Yet the oddities have long fascinated
amateur and professional mathematicians.

The first prime numbers are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, and so on. The number 10
is not prime because it is divisible by 2 and 5, for example. There
are an infinite number of primes: The curious or numerologically
inclined can peruse a list of the first 50 million primes online.

Mersenne primes like Cooper?s were named for the French monk Marin
Mersenne, who studied these numbers more than 350 years ago. The GIMPS
project has discovered all 14 of the largest known Mersenne primes.

A Mersenne prime is of the form 2P-1, where the variable P is itself a
prime -- making the Mersenne an elite sort of prime, a James Bond
among spies. The first Mersenne primes are 3, 7, 31, and 127
corresponding to P = 2, 3, 5, and 7, respectively, the GIMPS website
explains.

There are only 48 known Mersenne primes.

From anders at aleph.se  Tue Feb  5 23:14:46 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 23:14:46 +0000
Subject: [ExI] cynicism
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

 <5110D485.90207@aleph.se> <001c01ce03a5$4e2f1a40$ea8d4ec0$@att.net>

 <51116285.6030202@aleph.se>

Message-ID: <51119266.1070203@aleph.se>

On 05/02/2013 21:48, Mike Dougherty wrote:
>
> Thanks for that.  Originally meant as a throwaway kind of tagline, it
> got more response than anything I've posted lately.  :)

That is sadly how most things work out :-)

> I'm curious though, especially in this group - does one "look good" as
> an idealistic cynic or as a repentant cynic?

I don't think cynics look good, because people are so used to fake 
cynics trying to look good as idealistic cynics (or at least smart, 
"hah! I can see right through it!"). So I would go with the repentant 
cynics, aiming at becoming critical thinkers.

There was a nice study a while ago showing that people who tended to 
believe in conspiracy theories also were more likely to want to join the 
conspiracy, which suggests that they are close to cynical cynics (and 
likely driven by a need to get social status - after all, conspiracies 
are also good attention-getters).

[ Today we in the FHI gang were accused by a visiting physicist of being 
cynics when we explained why a certain well-funded big research project 
was methodologically flawed, but we cheerfully explained that we were 
just philosophers. We *are* trying to change things, it is just hard. ]

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

From anders at aleph.se  Tue Feb  5 23:15:59 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 23:15:59 +0000
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: <511192AF.5010903@aleph.se>

So, Spike, how does this fit with current GIMPS trends?

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Tue Feb  5 22:57:34 2013
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 14:57:34 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Fluoride nonsense
Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 4:00 AM,  Alan Grimes  wrote:

snip

> I love how this thread is developing.
>
> One technical note here. Be aware that there are several types of
> fluoride. There is calcium fluoride that can be a nutrient in some
> limited quantities and there is sodium fluoride that is put into the
> water supply which is a toxin. It should also be noted that what is
> delivered to the water companies is actually a mess of toxic waste
> including depleted uranium and other substances.

Alan, is it too much to expect the quality of information on this list
to be up to Wikipedia standards?

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

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

How do you make a case that the fluoride ion in water is different
coming from sodium or calcium?

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

Given the source of many fluoride compounds from phosphate rock, it's
within reason to expect a little uranium.

But depleted uranium?  Not a chance.

Keith

From msd001 at gmail.com  Wed Feb  6 01:22:32 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 20:22:32 -0500
Subject: [ExI] cynicism
In-Reply-To: <51119266.1070203@aleph.se>
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

 <5110D485.90207@aleph.se> <001c01ce03a5$4e2f1a40$ea8d4ec0$@att.net>

 <51116285.6030202@aleph.se>

 <51119266.1070203@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
> [ Today we in the FHI gang were accused by a visiting physicist of being
> cynics when we explained why a certain well-funded big research project was
> methodologically flawed, but we cheerfully explained that we were just
> philosophers. We *are* trying to change things, it is just hard. ]

"just philosophers"  Didn't they made a special drink for Socrates
over his brand of "just philosophy"?

From msd001 at gmail.com  Wed Feb  6 01:29:46 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 20:29:46 -0500
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Dave Sill  wrote:
> http://www.foxnews.com/science/2013/02/05/worlds-largest-prime-number-discovered/
> The number -- 2 multiplied by itself 57,885,161 times, written
> mathematically as 257,885,161-1 -- is the first prime discovered in
> four years.

*wince*  we know what he or she meant, even if he or she did not.

> The first prime numbers are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, and so on.

'and so on' as if the first 5 primes describe a series so self-evident...

Is there any way to estimate the amount of FLOPS that has been
dedicated to finding primes and express this as a percentage of total
FLOPS humanity has managed to calculate in silicon?  Both are big
numbers, but I am too under-informed to know their relative scale.

From anders at aleph.se  Wed Feb  6 02:00:28 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 06 Feb 2013 02:00:28 +0000
Subject: [ExI] cynicism
In-Reply-To: 
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

 <5110D485.90207@aleph.se> <001c01ce03a5$4e2f1a40$ea8d4ec0$@att.net>

 <51116285.6030202@aleph.se>

 <51119266.1070203@aleph.se>

Message-ID: <5111B93C.3030803@aleph.se>

On 06/02/2013 01:22, Mike Dougherty wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 5, 2013 at 6:14 PM, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
>> [ Today we in the FHI gang were accused by a visiting physicist of being
>> cynics when we explained why a certain well-funded big research project was
>> methodologically flawed, but we cheerfully explained that we were just
>> philosophers. We *are* trying to change things, it is just hard. ]
> "just philosophers"  Didn't they made a special drink for Socrates
> over his brand of "just philosophy"?

There is an art of balancing between infuriating and interesting.

We'll see how well I manage in next New Scientist. I think I handled it 
decently with the recent love drug coverage from the Atlantic, but then 
again, who can get upset by ethicists trying to save love? ;-)

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

From spike66 at att.net  Wed Feb  6 02:15:35 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 18:15:35 -0800
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <511192AF.5010903@aleph.se>
References: 
 <511192AF.5010903@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <001501ce040f$d9e83f20$8db8bd60$@att.net>

So, Spike, how does this fit with current GIMPS trends?

-- 
Anders Sandberg,

Oooohhhhh so cooooool!  

Wicked cool, there is so much interesting signal in this discovery.

Preliminary result, the size of the largest known prime number doubled every
7.8 seconds over the past four years, since the last record was set.  By
that I mean the size of the largest known prime increased by a factor of
2^15241360 over that interval, or increased in size of over 15 million
doublings, in about 120 million seconds, for an average doubling time of
under 8 seconds.  

This isn't a record.  You may recall back in 09 there were two records set
right together, only a few months apart.  That blew my mind bigtime, since
it was the culmination of a wild cluster of Mersenne primes.  COOOOOL!

More later, family obligations,

spike

From spike66 at att.net  Wed Feb  6 02:23:58 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 18:23:58 -0800
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 

Message-ID: <001601ce0411$05e175a0$11a460e0$@att.net>

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
...

>>... The first prime numbers are 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, and so on.

>...'and so on' as if the first 5 primes describe a series so
self-evident...

Ja that comment gave me a good laugh too Mike.

>...Is there any way to estimate the amount of FLOPS that has been dedicated
to finding primes and express this as a percentage of total FLOPS humanity
has managed to calculate in silicon?  Both are big numbers, but I am too
under-informed to know their relative scale.
_______________________________________________

Yes there is!  I am working on a reasonable way to estimate that with a
rolling average smoothing technique, which I will post here soon, but not
this evening or maybe not until this weekend.  Lotta action going on.

spike

From lubkin at unreasonable.com  Wed Feb  6 04:12:11 2013
From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Tue, 05 Feb 2013 23:12:11 -0500
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: <201302060412.r164CTnS006471@reva.xtremeunix.com>

Dave Sill wrote:

>There are only 48 known Mersenne primes.

I went to grad school with Dave Slowinski, who found seven of them.
I haven't seen him for years so I'm not sure why he stopped. My theories:
He's no longer at Cray, and therefore doesn't have access to
otherwise-unused supercomputers to run his code on. Or he can't
compete with GIMPS. Or seventeen years was enough and he's found
something else to do.

Meanwhile, 8675309 is prime. And apparently Jenny is too.

-- David.

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Wed Feb  6 03:48:09 2013
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 19:48:09 -0800
Subject: [ExI] China and power satellites
Message-ID: 

I can't say exactly how I have come to the conclusion that this from
Nov. of last year is important

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-11-02/india/34877401_1_space-solar-power-space-collaboration-v-ponraj

But I have reasons to think it is.

It could be that the world changed last Nov. 2 and we just have not
yet noticed it.

Keith

From spike66 at att.net  Wed Feb  6 05:15:43 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 21:15:43 -0800
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <511192AF.5010903@aleph.se>
References: 
 <511192AF.5010903@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <005101ce0429$040fd600$0c2f8200$@att.net>

On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
Subject: Re: [ExI] 2^57885161-1

So, Spike, how does this fit with current GIMPS trends?

-- 

Anders Sandberg,

Thank you for asking, Anders.  What a delightful question!

I looked at doubling times of the largest known prime number, focusing on
only since 1950, because the largest known prime has almost always been a
Mersenne prime since those days, and will be for the remainder of human
history, details available on request.

In this first graph, I am showing the doubling time on the Y axis, with the
date on the horizontal.  The signal is chaotic at first, because there was
no real systematic search for enormous prime numbers.  It was almost as if
no one cared.  Shameful.  Unacceptable behavior from our grandparent's
generation.

I have applied a homemade smoothing and filtering technique I actually
designed for another purpose, but the point is that as you go down into the
higher series numbers, the curve gets smoother.  Check it out:

Very well, OK let's ignore those early years before 1978, when the earth was
inhabited by cave men and cave women, dwelling in yurts.  Then we can go to
a more interesting scale.  I am intentionally avoiding going with semilog.
Now we get this:

So now we see what happened when computers started coming online in the 70s
and we started using them for fun stuff like the Lucas Lehmer algorithm.  We
had a cluster of Mersenne discoveries.  I first heard of the Lucas Lehmer in
high school, which was in 1978.

Let's zoom in once more:

Do ignore the oddball horizontal scale for now.  I wanted to get that 1987
data point in there.  What we are showing here is that with successively
more data used in the smoothing technique, it is ever more clear that
something dramatic was causing the time between doubling size of the largest
known prime to be reduced dramatically.  So now if we look at another order
of magnitude closer, we see the start of the graph right around when GIMPS
was started with the first Prime95 FFT algorithm, which is around when I got
involved in it:

Clearly, the introduction of GIMPS with the optimized Prime95 has
dramatically lowered the time it takes to find cool new stuff!

Another order of magnitude please:

This is why I commented earlier that this isn't exactly a record, but
depending on how you filter the data, it is a record.  We had an anomalous
interval there in the unfiltered noisy data, but look at that gorgeous
series 12!  Oh beautiful is that data!  If we take into account the trend in
the last dozen Mersenne discoveries, we see we are getting steadily faster.
You see there that weird cluster in the 2004-2006 timeframe that had blown
my mind.  I had expected a stretch like the last four years for a long time.

Friends, my apologies.  I just looked over what I have written and realize
that it must be incomprehensible to those who do not follow this kind of
junk.  I get used to the way we write about this subject on my Mersenne
Prime group; we take so much for granted.  But I realize that here I am
among a number of practically normal people in the area of obscure number
theory.  Perhaps many here are prime virgins.

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image003.png
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 48946 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image005.png
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 39127 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image009.png
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 45363 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image011.png
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 56109 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image015.png
Type: application/octet-stream
Size: 50257 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: 

From spike66 at att.net  Wed Feb  6 05:57:55 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 5 Feb 2013 21:57:55 -0800
Subject: [ExI] prime
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: <005f01ce042e$e8f5c270$bae14750$@att.net>

...

A friend who knows how I am, and is my friend anyway, sent me this link:

http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/volunteer-discovers-a-new-17-million-
digit-prime-number/

in which is found the following comment:

"A Mersenne prime is a prime number that can be written in the form Mp =
2n-1, and they're extremely rare finds. Of all the numbers between 0 and
2^25,964,951-1 there are 1,622,441 that are prime, but only 42 are Mersenne
primes."

Oh boy, from the standpoint of orders of magnitude, this might be the
largest error in the history of publishing.  The number of primes between 0
and 25,964,951-1 is not 1,622,441.  It is a number on the order of 1E(seven
million) rather than on the order of 1E6.  So they missed it by more than 7
million orders of magnitude.  I know of no other error of that size.  That
error is unimaginably larger than estimating the mass of the visible
universe at less than the mass of an electron, if you measure it in the
number of orders of magnitude between the right answer and the given answer.

What they meant is there are 1,622,441 Mersenne numbers between 0 and
2^25964,951-1, a Mersenne number being defined as a number of the form 2^P-1
where p is prime.

But we will forgive.  Probably some prime virgin wrote the article.  

I on the other hand, am just the opposite of a prime virgin.  I am a total
prime slut, a complete prime whore.  I will do anything for primes,
anything.

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From protokol2020 at gmail.com  Wed Feb  6 08:46:52 2013
From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 09:46:52 +0100
Subject: [ExI] prime
In-Reply-To: <005f01ce042e$e8f5c270$bae14750$@att.net>
References: 
 <005f01ce042e$e8f5c270$bae14750$@att.net>
Message-ID: 

Rather think what the primes can do for you, and NOT what can you do for
primes!

On Wed, Feb 6, 2013 at 6:57 AM, spike  wrote:

> ** **
>
> ...****
>
> ** **
>
> A friend who knows how I am, and is my friend anyway, sent me this link:**
> **
>
> ** **
>
>
> http://arstechnica.com/science/2013/02/volunteer-discovers-a-new-17-million-digit-prime-number/
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> in which is found the following comment:****
>
> ** **
>
> "A Mersenne prime is a prime number that can be written in the form Mp =
> 2n-1, and they?re extremely rare finds. Of all the numbers between 0 and
> 2^25,964,951-1 there are 1,622,441 that are prime, but only 42 are Mersenne
> primes."****
>
> ** **
>
> Oh boy, from the standpoint of orders of magnitude, this might be the
> largest error in the history of publishing.  The number of primes between 0
> and 25,964,951-1 is not 1,622,441.  It is a number on the order of 1E(seven
> million) rather than on the order of 1E6.  So they missed it by more than 7
> million orders of magnitude.  I know of no other error of that size.  That
> error is unimaginably larger than estimating the mass of the visible
> universe at less than the mass of an electron, if you measure it in the
> number of orders of magnitude between the right answer and the given answer.
> ****
>
> ** **
>
> What they meant is there are 1,622,441 Mersenne numbers between 0 and
> 2^25964,951-1, a Mersenne number being defined as a number of the form
> 2^P-1 where p is prime.****
>
> ** **
>
> But we will forgive.  Probably some prime virgin wrote the article.  ****
>
> ** **
>
> I on the other hand, am just the opposite of a prime virgin.  I am a total
> prime slut, a complete prime whore.  I will do anything for primes,
> anything.****
>
> ** **
>
> 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 rtomek at ceti.pl  Wed Feb  6 19:16:40 2013
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 20:16:40 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ExI] Fruoline vs rest of the stuff in the water
Message-ID: 

Regardless if "they" want to debilitate "us" (frankly, how many more 
bottoms can we go throu wrt to collective cleverness of humans - I think 
tv and multimedia industry are already doing fine job on this and taking 
us even lower and lower every few years, yet nobody claims they are 
members of the conspiracy, AFAIK).

But, there are quite a few substances in water, that one way on another 
can be digested, like:

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

And even if there are regulations on what and how much can be consumed, 
individual's greed is all that is required to feed us with "stuff". And 
even if he gets caught - so what, ones health or life cannot be bought 
back (some could argue that money could sweeten ones last days, but this 
sugar is rather sour I think).

Also, I find it interesting that collective mind is afraid so much about 
things that substances do to already developed brains, while paying much 
less attention (it seems) to things the substances can do to developing 
fetus. And embryos are even more sensitive to any kind of external 
factors, aren't they.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **

From natasha at natasha.cc  Thu Feb  7 06:14:30 2013
From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More)
Date: Wed, 6 Feb 2013 23:14:30 -0700
Subject: [ExI] cynicism
In-Reply-To: <51119266.1070203@aleph.se>
References: <510D6026.9010902@speakeasy.net>

 <002d01ce01d1$c9708430$5c518c90$@att.net>

 <5110D485.90207@aleph.se> <001c01ce03a5$4e2f1a40$ea8d4ec0$@att.net>

 <51116285.6030202@aleph.se>

 <51119266.1070203@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <001801ce04fa$64242ab0$2c6c8010$@natasha.cc>

LOL!!!

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
Sent: Tuesday, February 05, 2013 4:15 PM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: Re: [ExI] cynicism

On 05/02/2013 21:48, Mike Dougherty wrote:
>
> Thanks for that.  Originally meant as a throwaway kind of tagline, it 
> got more response than anything I've posted lately.  :)

That is sadly how most things work out :-)

> I'm curious though, especially in this group - does one "look good" as 
> an idealistic cynic or as a repentant cynic?

I don't think cynics look good, because people are so used to fake cynics
trying to look good as idealistic cynics (or at least smart, "hah! I can see
right through it!"). So I would go with the repentant cynics, aiming at
becoming critical thinkers.

There was a nice study a while ago showing that people who tended to believe
in conspiracy theories also were more likely to want to join the conspiracy,
which suggests that they are close to cynical cynics (and likely driven by a
need to get social status - after all, conspiracies are also good
attention-getters).

[ Today we in the FHI gang were accused by a visiting physicist of being
cynics when we explained why a certain well-funded big research project was
methodologically flawed, but we cheerfully explained that we were just
philosophers. We *are* trying to change things, it is just hard. ]

--
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

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

From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Feb  7 11:38:44 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 11:38:44 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary computing
Message-ID: 

?We are working on evolving brains that can be downloaded onto a
robot, wake up, and begin exploring their environment to figure out
how to accomplish the high-level objectives we give them (e.g. avoid
getting damaged, find recharging stations, locate survivors, pick up
trash, etc.),? says Jeffrey Clune, Assistant Professor of Computer
Science at the University of Wyoming, who is part of the robotics
team.

A recent breakthrough in understanding why biological brains are
organized into modules could prove to be a game changer in the field
of artificial intelligence and allow scaling computer brains to
millions or billions of connections.
The breakthrough in understanding modularity will allow them and
others to start evolving digital brains that are, for the first time,
structurally organized like biological brains, composed of many neural
modules. According to Mouret the merging of modularity with AI ?makes
a powerful tool to give robots the adaptation abilities of animal
species.? If a robot breaks a leg or loses a part, it?ll learn to
compensate and still operate effectively, just like animals do.

?Evolutionary computation has already produced many things that are
better than anything a human engineer has come up with, but its
designs still pale in comparison to those found in nature,? states
Clune. ?As we begin to learn more about how nature produces its
exquisite designs, the sky?s the limit: There?s no reason we cannot
evolve robots as smart and capable as jaguars, hawks, and human
beings.?
------------

Let's hope they evolve to be friendly to humans..........

BillK

From mrjones2020 at gmail.com  Thu Feb  7 13:08:40 2013
From: mrjones2020 at gmail.com (J.R. Jones)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 08:08:40 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary computing
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: 

On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 6:38 AM, BillK  wrote:

> Let's hope they evolve to be friendly to humans..........

Forget 'hoping'.  Let's plan for it.  Design it.  If these AI evolve as
described, nurture will play a major role in how 'friendly' they are.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Feb  7 13:12:29 2013
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 14:12:29 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary computing
In-Reply-To: 
References: 

Message-ID: <20130207131229.GZ6172@leitl.org>

On Thu, Feb 07, 2013 at 08:08:40AM -0500, J.R. Jones wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 7, 2013 at 6:38 AM, BillK  wrote:
> 
> > Let's hope they evolve to be friendly to humans..........
> 
> 
> Forget 'hoping'.  Let's plan for it.  Design it.  If these AI evolve as
> described, nurture will play a major role in how 'friendly' they are.

You can take people for blueprint, but milk of human kindness 
won't be sticky if there's a difference in the evolution rate -- 
and there soon will be.

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  7 15:58:57 2013
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 07:58:57 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Quote of the Year
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: <1360252737.72035.YahooMailClassic@web165006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Mike Dougherty  quoth:

> Sometimes I wish I wasn't so cynical; then I remember why
> it's a good idea.

Brilliant, Mike.  That's my candidate for Quote of the Year.

Ben Zaiboc

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  7 16:13:31 2013
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 08:13:31 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

> "Prime numbers, which are divisible only by themselves and
> one, "

wait for it...

> " have little mathematical importance."

!!!

Even I know that's not true, and I'm a mathematical troglodyte.

Ben Zaiboc

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Thu Feb  7 21:22:04 2013
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Thu, 7 Feb 2013 13:22:04 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Gary North believes the search for extraterrestrial life...
In-Reply-To: <1360271906.56599.YahooMailNeo@web126206.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <1360271906.56599.YahooMailNeo@web126206.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1360272124.86797.YahooMailNeo@web126202.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/02/07/darwinists-spend-tax-dollars-to-embarrass-christianity-the-search-for-life-in-space/

Well,
 it's hilarious. He really thinks, regardless of the tax-funding, that 
it's all about disproving his particular theology.* That's what these 
folks are about?!

And I disagree with him about search for 
extraterrestrial life would not happen in a totally free market society.
 My guess is in a more free market society, presuming people were 
interested and most things stayed the same (such as technological 
progress -- i.e., everyone doesn't all decide to become Amish), access 
to space would be much cheaper, so that funding efforts like space 
telescopes and interplanetary and even interstellar probes could be done
 on much smaller budgets. My guess is, too, under a free market in space
 transportation, the
 overall price would not only come down, but a more flexibility 
infrastructure would be built -- one that doesn't have just a few 
national or international space efforts with a somewhat political 
selection process on whom and what goes into space.

Maybe I'm wrong about this. It's just my speculation, but why does North believe he's right? Simply because he doesn't care about what's off Earth does not mean no one does. And it certainly doesn't mean, absent loads of government-funding, no one would ever try to find out. This seems along the lines of if the government didn't fund fossil hunting, no one would ever look for fossils. Well, they did look for them long before it was subsidized by the government and much fossil hunting today seems to be a private affair.

Regards,

Dan

* Why would finding life off Earth disprove Christianity any more than 
finding out the Earth isn't flat or that the Earth isn't a few thousand 
years old? I mean since Christians aren't going to let those other facts get in the way of their beliefs, why would finding some pond scum on 
Mars matter to them? I imagine Christians will find a way to make their 
beliefs sit well with whatever is found off world. 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From lubkin at unreasonable.com  Thu Feb  7 22:19:40 2013
From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 17:19:40 -0500
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo .com>
References: 
 <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Ben Zaiboc wrote:

> > "Prime numbers, which are divisible only by themselves and
> > one, "
>
>wait for it...
>
> > " have little mathematical importance."
>
>!!!
>
>Even I know that's not true, and I'm a mathematical troglodyte.

I'm not sure that's not true. They're of *practical* use. That doesn't
mean they're of mathematical importance, although I have to guess
what they mean by that.

How significant are prime numbers outside of number theory?
I remember them popping up occasionally as a device in crafting
a proof by contradiction, but that's about it.

Versus numbers that are of broad mathematical (and practical)
significance, like -1, 0, 1, 2, i, e, pi, and phi.

-- David.

From anders at aleph.se  Thu Feb  7 23:24:03 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 23:24:03 +0000
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: 
 <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>

On 07/02/2013 22:19, David Lubkin wrote:
> How significant are prime numbers outside of number theory?
> I remember them popping up occasionally as a device in crafting
> a proof by contradiction, but that's about it.

Pretty significant. In group theory subgroups have sizes that are 
factors of the size of the larger group, so prime-sized groups are 
simple groups. This means that primes creep in everywhere group theory 
applies (more or less everywhere), like in symmetries. Essentially any 
part of discrete mathematics will occasionally deal with primes since it 
involves counting and chunking stuff into similar-sized sets. And then 
there are the periodical cicadas, who spend a prime number of years 
underground before emerging, likely because it makes it hard for 
predators to synchronize their population oscillations to them..

> Versus numbers that are of broad mathematical (and practical)
> significance, like -1, 0, 1, 2, i, e, pi, and phi.

You are comparing apples or oranges (or rather, apples and Rosaceae) - 
these are individual numbers, while primes typically occur as a type of 
numbers. You should compare primes to odd numbers, fractions or 
irrational numbers instead. There I think they hold their own quite nicely.

Of the above list of numbers I think phi is overrated. Sure, there are 
many pretty identities with it, but most are not terribly *deep*. The 
just follow straightforwardly from it being the solution of x^2-x-1=0.  
The only IMHO truly "deep" aspect of phi is that it is the winding 
number of the last invariant torus in the KAM theorem, but even that is 
a consequence of it being the least approximable irrational number, 
itself a consequence of its very simple continued fraction (which 
follows from the equation). And don't get me started about people going 
starry eyed over its golden and magical properties.

Give me Euler's gamma constant any day!  (I strongly recommend Havil's 
book on gamma)

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University

From lubkin at unreasonable.com  Fri Feb  8 00:42:23 2013
From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Thu, 07 Feb 2013 19:42:23 -0500
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
References: 
 <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
 <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Anders wrote:

>>Versus numbers that are of broad mathematical (and practical)
>>significance, like -1, 0, 1, 2, i, e, pi, and phi.
>
>You are comparing apples or oranges (or rather, apples and Rosaceae) 
>- these are individual numbers, while primes typically occur as a 
>type of numbers. You should compare primes to odd numbers, fractions 
>or irrational numbers instead. There I think they hold their own quite nicely.

That doesn't make sense to me.

I could compare women mathematicians with Galois, Fermat,
and Descartes, and claim that the three of them were of greater
significance than the women. You then say the proper comparison
is women mathematicians with French mathematicians.

I'm not going to stick up for phi. But I'd pick any three of the others
over all of the primes that aren't of the three picked. For their
significance in mathematics, their appearance in nature, and
their role in technology.

-- David.

From sparge at gmail.com  Fri Feb  8 13:44:34 2013
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 08:44:34 -0500
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: 
 <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
 <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
 <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: 

What's the mathematical importance of 2^257885161-1? Or Mersenne
primes in general?

-Dave

From spike66 at att.net  Fri Feb  8 15:39:47 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 07:39:47 -0800
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
 <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
 <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
 <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Message-ID: <005601ce0612$875efb90$961cf2b0$@att.net>

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dave Sill
Sent: Friday, February 08, 2013 5:45 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] 2^57885161-1

What's the mathematical importance of 2^257885161-1? Or Mersenne primes in
general?

-Dave
_______________________________________________

We could use them for doing stress tests on new computers or new processors.
If you run the Lucas Lehmer algorithm and get a residual of zero, you have
demonstrated that your new computer can run at maximum capacity for over a
month running over 25 million processor-intensive Fourier transforms
flawlessly without an error.

We could use them to find out of some sneaky virus has invaded our computer
which is quietly running its own background process.  This is an important
application I have repeatedly tried to sell to big companies with thousands
of computers.  If you use operating systems by Microsloth, hit ctrl-alt-del
and bring up the task manager, look at the CPU column, notice that your
computer is doing nothing, even when you are using it.  Back in the old
days, they used to have a line called System Idle Process.  But Microsloth
apparently didn't like to advertise the absurdity of Idle Process being
persistently 96 to 99 percent of the CPU "usage" so just now I notice that
isn't in there anymore.  

A number of years ago, when processors were about a tenth the power they are
now, I noticed this and began to wonder if some sneaky perpetrator could
write a virus which would disguise itself as System Idle Process.  I asked a
computer professional at my workplace who assured me this could not be done,
absolutely impossible.  I asked a second IT professional, a more experienced
smarter guy, who said it wasn't clear that this is completely impossible,
and we should think about that, but that he personally didn't know how to do
it.  Noting the trend in the answers, I found the smartest IT guy in the
company, who told me that this could be done, he has seen a process disguise
itself as something else, and yes we damn well should have some means of
detecting that.

So...  I believed the third guy.  My notion was to intentionally put
something like GIMPS on all company computers, rig it to not compute at all
unless no key has been touched for at least five minutes, like a screen
saver from the old days, then rig up some kind of computation-accomplished
logger, then use our high-tech trend-spotter software (the kind we space
guys use all the time) to see if any particular machine isn't getting much
work done, then go figure out why.

Of course, we don't need Mersenne Primes or GIMPS to do that, but why not
that particular application?  It is a perfectly suitable for that, it's
free, and it is easy to modify the code to do logging, since the code is
open.

In all this I do recognize the logical tension... understatement, I
recognize the absurdity of having a rocket scientist commenting to this
particular crowd on something having to do with computers and processors.
But you guys often comment on rocket science, so hey, it's all good, we are
among friends.  {8^D  So I ask my computer-superiors present, which is
almost everyone here, why not rig up some kind of GIMPS-like process, send
it out to every desktop computer in the company, find out which computers
are failing to get it done and why.  We might find a new Mersenne prime,
which is good PR for the company.

spike

From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Feb  8 16:24:57 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 16:24:57 +0000
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <005601ce0612$875efb90$961cf2b0$@att.net>
References: 
 <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
 <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
 <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 <005601ce0612$875efb90$961cf2b0$@att.net>
Message-ID: 

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:39 PM, spike  wrote:
> We could use them to find out of some sneaky virus has invaded our computer
> which is quietly running its own background process.  This is an important
> application I have repeatedly tried to sell to big companies with thousands
> of computers.  If you use operating systems by Microsloth, hit ctrl-alt-del
> and bring up the task manager, look at the CPU column, notice that your
> computer is doing nothing, even when you are using it.  Back in the old
> days, they used to have a line called System Idle Process.  But Microsloth
> apparently didn't like to advertise the absurdity of Idle Process being
> persistently 96 to 99 percent of the CPU "usage" so just now I notice that
> isn't in there anymore.
>
>

System Idle Process is still there in Windows 7 Task Manager.
You have to tick the box 'Show processes from all users' at the bottom.

(Yes, I know that you are the only user, but Windows doesn't agree).  :)

You can also install Process Explorer (free from Microsoft) for a much
more detailed analysis of the hundreds of tasks your Win7 computer is
running.
Get it here: 

BillK

From spike66 at att.net  Sat Feb  9 00:35:23 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 16:35:23 -0800
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
 <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
 <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
 <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 <005601ce0612$875efb90$961cf2b0$@att.net>

Message-ID: <00e601ce065d$5985a8e0$0c90faa0$@att.net>

>... On Behalf Of BillK
Subject: Re: [ExI] 2^57885161-1

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 3:39 PM, spike  wrote:
>>... We could use them to find out of some sneaky virus has invaded our 
> computer which is quietly running its own background process...But
Microsloth apparently didn't like to 
> advertise the absurdity of Idle Process being persistently 96 to 99 
> percent of the CPU "usage" so just now I notice that isn't in there
anymore.
>
>

>...System Idle Process is still there in Windows 7 Task Manager.
You have to tick the box 'Show processes from all users' at the
bottom...BillK
_______________________________________________

Thanks BillK!  You computer gurus on ExI never let me down.  Even after all
these years, I am still so clumsy with operating systems.  Not enough
mathematical logic in the design causes them to be difficult for me to
understand.  This button with Show processes from all users is a perfect
example.

Now, this is what I meant by the original post.  Imagine some yahoo wrote a
virus which would install a piece of code which would only run when nothing
is going on with the keyboard, then sat back there quietly chewing away on
Mersenne numbers.  You could easily load up a computer with enough numbers
that it would work for years or even decades, and still have only a kb in
the program.  For instance, the candidate Mersenne numbers would by 8
decimal digits each, so about 27 bits would be used up per month (apologies
again for assuming a bunch of knowledge from those who don't think about
this kind of thing all the time.)  Then, the yahoo could rig the virus to
report out its result only if the Mersenne number is shown to be prime.
This it could do by posting the result to some public site which the yahoo
knows will be there and the URL will not change forever, such as the weather
channel or a local school's website, which will forever be
FestrunkElementary.edu for instance.  Then the program could go out there
and post the result in such a way that it wouldn't draw attention and
wouldn't be traceable.

For instance, if the virus ever finds a Mersenne prime, it would then post
to Festrunk the following message "Nice day to take my aardvaark for a walk,
then perhaps I will go see the kayak race, if the clouds break up, but first
I need to call {first three digits} - {next three digits} - {last two
digits} 73, to get a weather report."

Then she sets up a google alert to point out whenever any website has all
three words aardvaark, kayak and cloud, with an intentional misspelling of
the beast, this being an example of three words seldom found in the same
paragraph.  It could hand back the answer in such a way that it wouldn't be
recognized by anyone.

This scheme would allow a yahoo to functionally steal background processor
time, with very little risk of ever getting caught because there would be no
link back to the perp. 

spike

From spike66 at att.net  Sat Feb  9 00:41:35 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 16:41:35 -0800
Subject: [ExI] self parking car
Message-ID: <00e701ce065e$377e7550$a67b5ff0$@att.net>

Oooohhh, this is cool.  Think about this: if you are the first kid on the
block to have one of these, before everyone knows they exist, there is
terrific potential for some wicked cool gags.

http://biertijd.com/mediaplayer/?itemid=39089

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From lubkin at unreasonable.com  Sat Feb  9 01:30:26 2013
From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Fri, 08 Feb 2013 20:30:26 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Google Air
Message-ID: <201302090130.r191UVXH026800@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Why is Google pursuing its own 29-acre private airport, with a 17,000 sq.
ft. terminal, 30,000 sq. ft. office & retail building, 60,000 sq. ft. 
hanger, etc.?
It's purportedly for their executives' private jets but I suspect there's
something more ambitious in mind.

One friend speculated it'll be "a private spaceport to service the moonbase
they're going to build," but that seems like wishful thinking.

-- David.

From atymes at gmail.com  Sat Feb  9 01:51:57 2013
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 17:51:57 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Google Air
In-Reply-To: <201302090130.r191UVXH026800@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <201302090130.r191UVXH026800@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: 

Facts are not in abundance.  It fits as well as any theory to note that
this comes just after their execs' humanitarian mission to North
Korea, and to suppose that a mass airlifted exodus - planefuls at
a time, over years - from NK might be in the works.

(NK's just shy of 25 million people, supposedly; if you take 250 per
flight - note that the article specifies the largest of business jets -
that's 100,000 flights.  10 flights per day, and the country could be
depopulated in about 30 years - ignoring birth/death rates, assuming
0 immigration, and if the pace was kept up.  That said, this seems
unlikely.)

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 5:30 PM, David Lubkin  wrote:
> 
>
> Why is Google pursuing its own 29-acre private airport, with a 17,000 sq.
> ft. terminal, 30,000 sq. ft. office & retail building, 60,000 sq. ft.
> hanger, etc.?
> It's purportedly for their executives' private jets but I suspect there's
> something more ambitious in mind.
>
> One friend speculated it'll be "a private spaceport to service the moonbase
> they're going to build," but that seems like wishful thinking.
>
>
> -- David.
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

From msd001 at gmail.com  Sat Feb  9 02:50:08 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 21:50:08 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Google Air
In-Reply-To: <201302090130.r191UVXH026800@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
References: <201302090130.r191UVXH026800@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
Message-ID: 

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 8:30 PM, David Lubkin  wrote:
> 
>
> Why is Google pursuing its own 29-acre private airport, with a 17,000 sq.
> ft. terminal, 30,000 sq. ft. office & retail building, 60,000 sq. ft.
> hanger, etc.?
> It's purportedly for their executives' private jets but I suspect there's
> something more ambitious in mind.
>
> One friend speculated it'll be "a private spaceport to service the moonbase
> they're going to build," but that seems like wishful thinking.

Isn't it logistics?  How else do you continue to recruit top talent if
you don't have your own airport?

I read an article about how tech companies have private bus lines
picking up their employees on routes around the city nearest HQ...
seems you can get to more people with an airport than you could with a
bus.

Or maybe they've decided to run their UAV program for
offroad.maps.google.com - instead of "street view" you'll have 'drone
mode' and with the deployment costs falling quicker than the drones
themselves, I expect we'll have real-time view of drone mode sooner
than anyone can plan on.  The revenue stream will come from
pay-per-view of places you might not otherwise have access,
pay-per-don't-view for celebs/etc to keep the first group out (yes,
that's called extortion), and pay-so-nobody-else-views (counter
measures to prevent competitors from employing the first two tactics)

From sparge at gmail.com  Fri Feb  8 16:03:19 2013
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 11:03:19 -0500
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <005601ce0612$875efb90$961cf2b0$@att.net>
References: 
 <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
 <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
 <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 <005601ce0612$875efb90$961cf2b0$@att.net>
Message-ID: 

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:39 AM, spike  wrote:
> So I ask my computer-superiors present, which is
> almost everyone here, why not rig up some kind of GIMPS-like process, send
> it out to every desktop computer in the company, find out which computers
> are failing to get it done and why.  We might find a new Mersenne prime,
> which is good PR for the company.

One problem is that busy CPUs consume more power than ones, so the
unused cycles aren't free. Another problem is that most CPU chips have
multiple cores, so keeping only one of them busy won't tell whether
there's a virus running on another one. So you have to keep all of the
cores busy. Combine the first problem with the second problem and you
a third potential problem: overheating.

But your proposed practical application of large primes doesn't answer
the question about their mathematical importance.

-Dave

From spike66 at att.net  Sat Feb  9 03:55:55 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 19:55:55 -0800
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
 <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
 <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
 <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 <005601ce0612$875efb90$961cf2b0$@att.net>

Message-ID: <010901ce0679$5d4697c0$17d3c740$@att.net>

>... On Behalf Of Dave Sill
Subject: Re: [ExI] 2^57885161-1

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:39 AM, spike  wrote:
> ...

>...One problem is that busy CPUs consume more power than ones, so the
unused cycles aren't free. Another problem is that most CPU chips have
multiple cores, so keeping only one of them busy won't tell whether there's
a virus running on another one. So you have to keep all of the cores busy.
Combine the first problem with the second problem and you a third potential
problem: overheating...

OK, so take all your new computers and run this app for a couple months, see
if they overheat.  If so, collect on the warranty.

>...But your proposed practical application of large primes doesn't answer
the question about their mathematical importance.

-Dave
_______________________________________________

Ja, I didn't really attempt that one at all.  Mostly they are an engineering
and entertainment thing, but look at a possible indirect benefit to
mathematics: young people notice how cool is this whole exercise and become
inspired to study mathematics in college.  Then perhaps they go on to
graduate school and post-grad, and then perhaps greatness.  Or perhaps they
figure out some cool statistical model (stretching a bit to call this
mathematics) to use superposition of probability distribution functions to
derive a method to predict the approximate time interval until the next
record prime is discovered, as I did thrice in 1998, 2000 and 2001, which
resulted in my eventually finding myself in Damien's completely
coincidentally wildly cool excellent book The Spike, which was not named
after me.

I know another benefit to mathematics that is as far as I know my only
completely original invention: imagine that some technologically advanced
society intercepts our signals and decide to invade earth to devour the
biota and savage our civilization, but they know nothing of our defensive
resources.  On their way inbound, they learn that the earthlings have
discovered 48 Mersenne primes.  Mersenne primes are fundamental; they would
be an interesting curiosity in any number base.  In the unlikely but
possible event that the invaders, even if advanced, never discovered the
Lucas Lehmer algorithm, even a technologically wildly advanced society would
only know about 15 to perhaps 20 MPs.  If they find we have 48 of them, they
would be astonished at the sheer volume of computing cycles we use on what
is apparently just play.  The warlike invaders would assume that the
earthlings are like themselves, and would extrapolate 1000 times as much
computing power dedicated to home-planet defense, at which time they
immediately call off the invasion and flee in terror, which saves the human
mathematicians from becoming alien excrement, advancing mathematics,
therefore Mersenne Primes are of great mathematical importance QED.

I call this the pyramid argument, for it is in a sense analogous to the
ancient Egyptian creating these enormous squared-off clearly manmade
mountains.  The endemic desert invaders see those things at some distance,
and extrapolate the presence of either some incomprehensible technology or
seething masses of men to build those things, those astonishing numbers of
men whose rock-carving skills could easily be temporarily diverted to
ass-whooping skills, elegantly sufficient to rid the desert of paltry
numbers of invaders before lunchtime, scarcely impacting schedule, and hey
sarge, perhaps we should wheel these camels through pi radians and gallop on
off to invade elsewhere.  I have the notion that this is why the Egyptian
drew all those figures with the sideways feet and hands: every invader they
ever saw noticed the pyramids and walked like an Egyptian, right on out of
Dodge forthwith.  The pyramids were the negative thirtieth century nukes:
you don't need to use 'em, you just need to have 'em.  The Mersenne Primes
would show we are smart enough to defend ourselves if called upon to do so.

Alternately, a really smart and peaceful nearby alien species intercept our
signals and learn that we know 48 MPs, and decide that we as a species are
sufficiently intelligent to be interesting, so they send us signals, share
with us all the cool mathematics they have discovered, and mathematics as a
scientific discipline is greatly advanced, consequently MPs are of great
mathematical importance QED.

spike

From clementlawyer at gmail.com  Sat Feb  9 03:16:51 2013
From: clementlawyer at gmail.com (James Clement)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 22:16:51 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Google Air
In-Reply-To: 
References: <201302090130.r191UVXH026800@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Message-ID: 

>
> David Lubkin  wrote:
> > <
> http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2013/02/07/san-jose-official-backs-plan-for-new-google-airport/
> >
> >
> > Why is Google pursuing its own 29-acre private airport, with a 17,000 sq.
> > ft. terminal, 30,000 sq. ft. office & retail building, 60,000 sq. ft.
> > hanger, etc.?
> > It's purportedly for their executives' private jets but I suspect there's
> > something more ambitious in mind.
> >
>

Google has rented hanger space at NASA/Ames for years, to house their
private 727. Doing so meant they didn't have to wait in lines or go through
Airport security. It's possible NASA changed its policy about allowing
private parties to use their airfield, or they simply wanted more control
over Google's comings and goings. In any case, I wouldn't read too much
into it.

James
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From msd001 at gmail.com  Sat Feb  9 03:47:37 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 8 Feb 2013 22:47:37 -0500
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
 <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
 <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
 <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 <005601ce0612$875efb90$961cf2b0$@att.net>

Message-ID: 

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 11:03 AM, Dave Sill  wrote:
> But your proposed practical application of large primes doesn't answer
> the question about their mathematical importance.

What do you consider important?

Suppose you collect matchbox cars.  Suppose you enjoy this hobby so
much that you spend weekends going to flea markets and estate sales
and other rummage-y type places.  In you whole life of collecting you
have read books about the rarest models and you're on the lookout for
a good find.  I think these unwieldy primes are the same kind of
"find" - they're cool in their own right.

Is the set of prime numbers important?  Is there value adding a new
member to that set?  There's some notoriety being recorded as the
discoverer of the 48th Mersenne prime, even if the name associated to
the discovery is merely the owner of a small part of humanity's
number-finding machinery.  Why does humanity devote so much resource
to finding these numbers?  What is the importance of any of humanity's
findings in this or any other domain?

From anders at aleph.se  Sat Feb  9 09:43:13 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 09:43:13 +0000
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
 <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
 <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
 <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Message-ID: <51161A31.2010506@aleph.se>

On 08/02/2013 13:44, Dave Sill wrote:
> What's the mathematical importance of 2^257885161-1? Or Mersenne
> primes in general?

I think calling them collector's items isn't too far off the mark. 
However, the long search for them has led to a lot of useful things like 
methods of faster primality testing and factoring, arithmetic for very 
large numbers, and things like the Mersenne twister random number 
generators.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mersenne_Twister

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb  9 14:07:52 2013
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 06:07:52 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Google Air
In-Reply-To: 
References: <201302090130.r191UVXH026800@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Message-ID: <1360418872.45563.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

?????
________________________________
From: James Clement 
To: ExI chat list  
Sent: Friday, February 8, 2013 7:16 PM
Subject: Re: [ExI] Google Air

>
>David Lubkin  wrote:
>>> 
>>>
>>> Why is Google pursuing its own 29-acre private airport, with a 17,000 sq.
>>> ft. terminal, 30,000 sq. ft. office & retail building, 60,000 sq. ft.
>>> hanger, etc.?
>>> It's purportedly for their executives' private jets but I suspect there's
>>> something more ambitious in mind.
>>>

>Google has rented hanger space at NASA/Ames for years, to house their private 727. Doing so meant they didn't have to wait in lines or go through Airport security. It's possible NASA changed its policy about allowing private parties to use their airfield, or they simply wanted more control over Google's comings and goings. In any case, I wouldn't read too much into it. 

I would agree with your assessment, James. When Spike and I were at Moffett Field pricing their hangar space, the Ames people did name drop Google several times. The problem with using a federally funded airstrip for your private jet is that Uncle Sam knows your comings and goings and can coordinate with the IRS to make sure you pay your "fair share". Doubly so if carbon credits should ever become an issue.
?

Stuart LaForge
?
?The future starts today, not tomorrow.?- Karol J?zef Wojtyla?

From painlord2k at libero.it  Sat Feb  9 16:23:09 2013
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 17:23:09 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Gary North believes the search for extraterrestrial
	life...
In-Reply-To: <1360272124.86797.YahooMailNeo@web126202.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <1360271906.56599.YahooMailNeo@web126206.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
 <1360272124.86797.YahooMailNeo@web126202.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <511677ED.3000006@libero.it>

Il 07/02/2013 22:22, Dan ha scritto:
> http://teapartyeconomist.com/2013/02/07/darwinists-spend-tax-dollars-to-embarrass-christianity-the-search-for-life-in-space/

> Well, it's hilarious. He really thinks, regardless of the tax-funding,
> that it's all about disproving his particular theology.* That's what
> these folks are about?!

No, I don't think he think all the people involved have this agenda.
What he believe, being a libertarian, is the first goal of the project
Keplero is to justify NASA existence and government fundings (the same
or more).

But, being a government agency and knowing the types of political hacks
that are nominated to manage the agencies or with the power to decide
the fundings, it is not improbable the priorities are all skewed up and
down all around the map.
It is not improbable the decisions about what funding, how much and why,
are influenced by stuff completely different like not hurt the feeling
of  someone (maybe a committed atheist with an ax to grind against
Christianity with political influence).

> And I disagree with him about search for extraterrestrial life would not
> happen in a totally free market society.

It would happen, surely, like the funding for other charities.
Like the funding for cataloging the types of butterflies in Brazil.
I think it is this that some Scientists hate more: being demoted to the
level of charities. But the work they do is on the same level as for a
practical stand point. If they have no way to show or explain the
material reward for a research project, it is just for some not material
reward.

Now, suppose these project succeed in showing up one or more planets
have life and, maybe, people on them.
Practical utility for the average Joe? How this will change his life,
apart from a philosophical/religious point of view?
What is the difference from looking for extraterrestrial life forms with
a giant telescope in orbit and debating the sex life of angels?
And what are the time frames to show any of them successful?
Decades? Centuries?

Both are not very high on my list of priorities.

I would like NASA financed (if NASA must exist) new technologies useful
to go there, not to look at there.

I regard space, stars, planets like women. To look at them is relaxing,
exciting, funny. But in the end, you want go there and do things with them.

> My guess is in a more free
> market society, presuming people were interested and most things stayed
> the same (such as technological progress -- i.e., everyone doesn't all
> decide to become Amish), access to space would be much cheaper, so that
> funding efforts like space telescopes and interplanetary and even
> interstellar probes could be done on much smaller budgets. My guess is,
> too, under a free market in space transportation, the overall price
> would not only come down, but a more flexibility infrastructure would be
> built -- one that doesn't have just a few national or international
> space efforts with a somewhat political selection process on whom and
> what goes into space.

The point in a more free market society is the level of funding would be
wildly different. There would much more research on applied science and
technology with economic returns and less on pet projects with no useful
(to us) ROI.
Then, with much more wealth available, the level of funding for petty
research would be greater than now, but it is not.

It is like the AGW mess. Why there is no real market based research?
Because there is no way to profit without government intervention.
Sea Level will raise? Where are the smart speculators buying out
highlands? Climate will become hotter, where are speculators buying
worthless (now) land in Canada or Patagonia?

> Maybe I'm wrong about this. It's just my speculation, but why does North
> believe he's right? Simply because he doesn't care about what's off
> Earth does not mean no one does.

I think he would agree with you and would support you if you choose to
use your money to finance this research.
I bet he would be more interested in financing, with his money, research
about space propulsion that make space accessible for more people and
business.
Or maybe in financing life extension research.

> And it certainly doesn't mean, absent
> loads of government-funding, no one would ever try to find out. This
> seems along the lines of if the government didn't fund fossil hunting,
> no one would ever look for fossils. Well, they did look for them long
> before it was subsidized by the government and much fossil hunting today
> seems to be a private affair.

In fact, there are no big pork behind fossil hunting.
But there is big pork behind space exploration.
What would happen to all this pork if they found something?
It would vanish.
Are you sure they will publish any discovery if this jeopardize their
funding?

> * Why would finding life off Earth disprove Christianity any more than
> finding out the Earth isn't flat or that the Earth isn't a few thousand
> years old? I mean since Christians aren't going to let those other facts
> get in the way of their beliefs, why would finding some pond scum on
> Mars matter to them? I imagine Christians will find a way to make their
> beliefs sit well with whatever is found off world.

It is not a Christianity problem (for sure Catholics have no problem
with it).
He is not arguing E.T. will disprove Christianity (or Islam) in any way.
He is arguing the people (the politicians mainly) funding the research
think it will do and try to use the research to do it, for their
political agenda.

Mirco

From andymck35 at gmail.com  Sun Feb 10 07:37:31 2013
From: andymck35 at gmail.com (Andrew Mckee)
Date: Sat, 09 Feb 2013 23:37:31 -0800
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <010901ce0679$5d4697c0$17d3c740$@att.net>
References: 
 <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
 <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
 <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 <005601ce0612$875efb90$961cf2b0$@att.net>

 <010901ce0679$5d4697c0$17d3c740$@att.net>
Message-ID: 

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 19:55:55 -0800, spike  wrote:

> ....
> Alternately, a really smart and peaceful nearby alien species intercept our
> signals and learn that we know 48 MPs, and decide that we as a species are
> sufficiently intelligent to be interesting, so they send us signals, share
> with us all the cool mathematics they have discovered, and mathematics as a
> scientific discipline is greatly advanced, consequently MPs are of great
> mathematical importance QED.
>
> spike

Clearly you have too much free time and alcohol on your hands.  :-)

Regards

From spike66 at att.net  Sat Feb  9 21:59:25 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 13:59:25 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Google Air
In-Reply-To: <1360418872.45563.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <201302090130.r191UVXH026800@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 <1360418872.45563.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <006101ce0710$ba332bf0$2e9983d0$@att.net>

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian
...

>>... they simply wanted more control over Google's comings and goings. In any case, I wouldn't read too much into it. 

>...I would agree with your assessment, James. When Spike and I were at Moffett Field pricing their hangar space, the Ames people did name drop Google several times...Stuart LaForge

_______________________________________________

Is that what that was about?  Hmmm, thanks Stuart, I am far too na?ve of the ways of business I fear.  The way I interpreted their comments was that they might be persuaded to rent us some space if we insist on it, but they want to structure the deal to throw our butts out as soon as a real company comes along, and they don't want to hear any whining about how there are no other hangars anywhere which would accommodate our needs.  Google is the real company that Ames had on the hook the whole time, ja?  That is a good example of why engineers hire business people, then call them "boss."

spike

From spike66 at att.net  Sat Feb  9 23:43:05 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 15:43:05 -0800
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
 <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
 <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
 <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 <005601ce0612$875efb90$961cf2b0$@att.net>

 <010901ce0679$5d4697c0$17d3c740$@att.net> 
Message-ID: <007401ce071f$353e50a0$9fbaf1e0$@att.net>

>... On Behalf Of Andrew Mckee
Subject: Re: [ExI] 2^57885161-1

On Fri, 08 Feb 2013 19:55:55 -0800, spike  wrote:

> ....
>>... Alternately, a really smart and peaceful nearby alien species 
> intercept our signals and learn that we know 48 MPs, and decide that 
> we as a species are sufficiently intelligent to be interesting, so 
> they send us signals, share with us all the cool mathematics they have 
> discovered, and mathematics as a scientific discipline is greatly 
> advanced, consequently MPs are of great mathematical importance QED.
>
> spike

>...Clearly you have too much free time and alcohol on your hands.  :-)

Regards
_______________________________________________

Hey I resemble that comment!

{8^D

I must confess however, no such excuse will suffice.  I was sober as deacon
when I wrote that silliness.  Here's the real usefulness: the search for
Mersenne primes is a perfect example of human's love for playfulness.  If
you watch Mythbusters, you will see that much of science advances because of
our curiosity, which is actually closely related to our species'
characteristic dedication to play.  Our playful nature carries inventiveness
second only to war needs as a driver for inventiveness.  We are where we are
because we love play and we love competition.  GIMPS is set up as a
competition of sorts.  All of you can play prime search too.  Of course, I
will whoop your butts, but you can play.  (Come on, let's play!)

spike

From sparge at gmail.com  Sun Feb 10 03:48:35 2013
From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill)
Date: Sat, 9 Feb 2013 22:48:35 -0500
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <010901ce0679$5d4697c0$17d3c740$@att.net>
References: 
 <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
 <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
 <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 <005601ce0612$875efb90$961cf2b0$@att.net>

 <010901ce0679$5d4697c0$17d3c740$@att.net>
Message-ID: 

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:55 PM, spike  wrote:
>
>>... On Behalf Of Dave Sill
>
>>...One problem is that busy CPUs consume more power than ones, so the
> unused cycles aren't free. Another problem is that most CPU chips have
> multiple cores, so keeping only one of them busy won't tell whether there's
> a virus running on another one. So you have to keep all of the cores busy.
> Combine the first problem with the second problem and you a third potential
> problem: overheating...
>
> OK, so take all your new computers and run this app for a couple months, see
> if they overheat.  If so, collect on the warranty.

Warranty? I don't got no steenkin' warranty. I built the box myself.
And it doesn't take months to overheat. With Folding at Home running on
all six cores, the temperature alarm triggers in less than five
minutes. But I didn't build the system to run F at H and it has never
alarmed under normal use, so I'm not inclined to upgrade the cooler.

>>...But your proposed practical application of large primes doesn't answer
> the question about their mathematical importance.
>
> Ja, I didn't really attempt that one at all.  Mostly they are an engineering
> and entertainment thing, but look at a possible indirect benefit to
> mathematics: young people notice how cool is this whole exercise and become
> inspired to study mathematics in college.  Then perhaps they go on to
> graduate school and post-grad, and then perhaps greatness.  Or perhaps they
> figure out some cool statistical model (stretching a bit to call this
> mathematics) to use superposition of probability distribution functions to
> derive a method to predict the approximate time interval until the next
> record prime is discovered, as I did thrice in 1998, 2000 and 2001, which
> resulted in my eventually finding myself in Damien's completely
> coincidentally wildly cool excellent book The Spike, which was not named
> after me.

Hey, I'm with you Spike. I'm just curious about real significance of
these huge primes.

-Dave

From spike66 at att.net  Sun Feb 10 16:35:35 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 08:35:35 -0800
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
 <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
 <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
 <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 <005601ce0612$875efb90$961cf2b0$@att.net>

 <010901ce0679$5d4697c0$17d3c740$@att.net>

Message-ID: <004401ce07ac$a73cebc0$f5b6c340$@att.net>

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dave Sill
Sent: Saturday, February 09, 2013 7:49 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] 2^57885161-1

On Fri, Feb 8, 2013 at 10:55 PM, spike  wrote:
>
>>... On Behalf Of Dave Sill
>
>>>... problem: overheating...
>
>>... OK, so take all your new computers and run this app for a couple 
> months, see if they overheat.  If so, collect on the warranty.

>...Warranty? I don't got no steenkin' warranty. I built the box myself....

All the more reason to give it a rugged stress test.  Perhaps some of the
gurus will correct me, I think the modern processors know when they are
getting hot and somehow signal GIMPS to run at half speed.  I might be wrong
on this: I can't figure what mechanism they could use to do this.  Gurus?
This feature in itself would be a valuable thing, since the log creates a
record of what calculation was done at what time.  So if something is
causing the machines to run hot, especially if it is happening in the middle
of the night, we might be able to catch 'em!

>>...resulted in my eventually finding myself in 
> Damien's completely coincidentally wildly cool excellent book The 
> Spike, which was not named after me.

>...Hey, I'm with you Spike. I'm just curious about real significance of
these huge primes. -Dave
_______________________________________________

Dave that thing about scaring away ravenous extraterrestrials thing is
really working.  We have been sending out EM signals for nearly a century,
and longer if you count all the stuff Tesla and the boys were doing, and yet
so far every alien invader has apparently been frightened away by all our
mighty Mersenne primes.

spike

From msd001 at gmail.com  Sun Feb 10 16:57:44 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 11:57:44 -0500
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <004401ce07ac$a73cebc0$f5b6c340$@att.net>
References: 
 <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
 <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
 <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 <005601ce0612$875efb90$961cf2b0$@att.net>

 <010901ce0679$5d4697c0$17d3c740$@att.net>

 <004401ce07ac$a73cebc0$f5b6c340$@att.net>
Message-ID: 

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 11:35 AM, spike  wrote:
> Dave that thing about scaring away ravenous extraterrestrials thing is
> really working.  We have been sending out EM signals for nearly a century,
> and longer if you count all the stuff Tesla and the boys were doing, and yet
> so far every alien invader has apparently been frightened away by all our
> mighty Mersenne primes.

Spike, it might also be this: http://www.terrybisson.com/page6/page6.html

or http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaFZTAOb7IE
(for those with the patience to watch 7 minutes of video to get the
same idea from under two minutes of reading the script)

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 10 17:18:22 2013
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 09:18:22 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Google Air
In-Reply-To: <006101ce0710$ba332bf0$2e9983d0$@att.net>
References: <201302090130.r191UVXH026800@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 <1360418872.45563.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <006101ce0710$ba332bf0$2e9983d0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <1360516702.66147.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

????
________________________________
From: spike 
To: 'The Avantguardian' ; 'ExI chat list'  
Sent: Saturday, February 9, 2013 1:59 PM
Subject: RE: [ExI] Google Air

>-----Original Message-----
>From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian
>...
>
>>>... they simply wanted more control over Google's comings and goings. In any case, I wouldn't read too much into it. 
>
>>...I would agree with your assessment, James. When Spike and I were at Moffett Field pricing their hangar space, the Ames people did name drop Google several times...Stuart LaForge
>
>_______________________________________________
>
>Is that what that was about?? Hmmm, thanks Stuart, I am far too na?ve of the ways of business I fear.? The way I interpreted their comments was that they might be persuaded to rent us some space if we insist on it, but they want to structure the deal to throw our butts out as soon as a real > company comes along, and they don't want to hear any whining about how there are no other hangars anywhere which would accommodate our needs.
?
Funny but?the way I interpreted their comments was that they were bound and determined to peel off all of Hangar One's skin but they?might rent it to us?in the future?if?and when they?reskined?it?but they weren't sure what they were going to do. They certainly followed through with the peeling part of the plan:
?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hangar_One_September_2012_-_2.jpg
?
I don't suppose they have started reskinning it eh?
?
Interestingly enough here is an overview of?NASA's plan:
?
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=historicproperties.arc.nasa.gov%2F...%2Fhangar1_carp_20111215.pdf&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CD0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhistoricproperties.arc.nasa.gov%2Fdownloads%2Fhangar1_carp_20111215.pdf&ei=k8kXUdmLL8LIiwKTxoGQAg&usg=AFQjCNH4a451UdNinMsf68XU1Fmt2Ige_A&bvm=bv.42080656,d.cGE
?
Of the options on page 92, only the ones that keep it in use as an airship hangar will be of any use to us. But I would opt to?*modernize* it in lieu of restoring it to historical specs.
?
> Google is the real company that Ames had on the hook the whole time, ja?? That is a good example of why engineers hire business people, then call them "boss."

Yeah but it looks like Google got away. Maybe NASA scared off Google by?trying to get?them to pay for the refurbishment of Hangar One. Of course Google just wants to park a 737, not a?megawatt class?sunship.?
?
?
Stuart LaForge
?
?The future starts today, not tomorrow.?- Karol J?zef Wojtyla 

From max at maxmore.com  Sun Feb 10 20:35:05 2013
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:35:05 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Alcor management
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: 

Rafal: As I commented on cryonet -- I've been both on boards that were
elected and those that were not (i.e. self-elected). I think there's room
for both, but my experience has been that elected boards are usually less
effective and more fractious. We're seeing this with Humanity+ (and have
before).

I'm not so sure that it would be a bad thing to have one or two directors
elected. From what someone posted, that does seem to be legally possible,
although whether Alcor could make the change I don't know.

I agree that it's generally better to choose between organizations rather
than elect those who run them. Some might object, in this case, that there
are only two real alternatives in cryonics in the USA.

--Max

On Sun, Feb 3, 2013 at 9:19 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki  wrote:

> I found this on cryonet:
>
> > 4.  I believe having a Board of Directors who does not answer to anyone
> > else is not good for bringing out the best in Alcor's directors.  You can
> > not expect the best work from those who are not held accountable.
>  Changing
> > back to having the membership elect the Directors would help Alcor more
> > than any other thing you could bring about
>
> ### Bad, bad idea. Alcor is (or should be) a business, not a democracy
> or a cooperative.
>
> Clients efficiently influence businesses by choosing between using
> their services and paying for them, or going somewhere else - this is
> the exit option. Most people exercise the pay or leave option in a way
> that maximizes their utility, weighing both cost of service and its
> quality versus competing offerings. They do that without knowing the
> internal details of how the business works yet their choices still
> force businesses to stay cheaper and better than their least efficient
> competitor (this insight is the basis of marginal analysis). Business
> managers either find out how to run their business efficiently enough,
> or somebody else eventually will compete their clients' money away
> from them, and this is a powerful incentive to search for the best
> solutions.
>
> A business that lets its paying customers directly control it with
> voice (which is costless to use) is likely to act very inefficiently.
> Clients usually do not know how to best run a business (it is not
> *their* business, only a business they have business with), and
> letting them dictate the details of how it is run will likely ruin it.
>
> Rafal
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>

-- 
Max More, PhD
Strategic Philosopher
Co-editor, *The Transhumanist Reader*
President & CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation
7895 E. Acoma Dr # 110
Scottsdale, AZ 85260
480/905-1906 ext 113
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From rtomek at ceti.pl  Sun Feb 10 20:44:06 2013
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 21:44:06 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
 <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
 <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
 <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Message-ID: 

On Fri, 8 Feb 2013, Dave Sill wrote:

> What's the mathematical importance of 2^257885161-1? Or Mersenne
> primes in general?
> 
> -Dave
> _______________________________________________

Eh, well. With primes in general, one can:

- make strangely quasi regular pictures, like Ulam's spiral

http://io9.com/5818900/the-bizarre-mathematical-conundrum-of-ulams-spiral

(I guess there can be more of them pictures, I just have to find a way to 
do them, heh)

- goedelize ones language - i.e. convert any sequence of symbols into 
unique natural number. In very simple example, my name can be goedelized 
with this primitive code:

(defun goedelize-simple (syms)
  (let ((alf " ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ")
        (goed 1)
        (primes '(2 3 5 7 11 13 17 19 23 29 31 37 41 43 47 53 59 61 67)))
    (map nil #'(lambda (z)
                 (let* ((posit (position z alf))
                        (prime (car primes))
                        (part (expt prime posit)))
                   (format t " pos(~A)=~A, ~A^~A=~A~%" z posit prime posit 
part)
                   (setf goed (* goed part))
                   (setf primes (cdr primes)))) syms)
    (format t " G(~A)=~A~%" syms goed)))

And after entering it into Common Lisp, one can get this:

CL-USER> (goedelize-simple "TOMASZ")
 pos(T)=20, 2^20=1048576
 pos(O)=15, 3^15=14348907
 pos(M)=13, 5^13=1220703125
 pos(A)=1, 7^1=7
 pos(S)=19, 11^19=61159090448414546291
 pos(Z)=26, 13^26=91733330193268616658399616009
 G(TOMASZ)=721298465788875811087189330837508329315168589988035637799680000000000000

(It is primitive, because it should use some kind of primes generator 
rather than fixed list with twenty-some ready numbers, so usefulness of 
this function is very limited to rather short messages - could be easily 
improved by extending the 'primes list - but version with full blown prime 
generation is unreadable for the expected reader of this email).

In more sophisticated use, Goedel used similar technique in proof of one 
of his famous theorem.

Obviously, one can easily learn my name by checking how many times 
G(TOMASZ) can be divided without the rest by consecutive primes, like, it 
divides 20 times by 2, so first letter is twentieth in alphabet (T), it 
divides 15 times by 3, hence second letter is O and so on.

Goedelized messages had been used by crew of one fictional s-f-spaceship, 
sent with mission to nonexistant planetary system (if I remember well), 
who once freed from civilisation boundaries, quickly developed themselves 
into superhumans, and started sending back home things like "we are coming 
back to whip your arses, get ready you bastards". Sounds to me like 
perfect way to use prime numbers. Unfortunately I keep forgetting the 
title and author, this must be a civilisation-induced block.

- like above, only differently, any natural number is either a prime, or 
can be constructed by multiplying certain primes

- primes are the right thing to use if one wants to make pseudo random 
generator

- primes are handy in some algorithms, for example when implementing hash 
tables

- last but not least, one can use primes in cryptography, secure 
communication, secure banking, setting up artificial currencies - provided 
that every interested party actually wants them secure.

Somehow I don't recall any other good use for primes. From what I have 
read, number theorists for many decades were proud that their field has no 
practical (military etc) applications. I would say, we are just starting 
to learn what to do with primes, which is why the list above is so short. 
Like Anders wrote, they are collectibles, especially the big ones. For 
now.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Feb 10 20:54:37 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 20:54:37 +0000
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
 <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
 <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
 <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Message-ID: 

On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> Goedelized messages had been used by crew of one fictional s-f-spaceship,
> sent with mission to nonexistant planetary system (if I remember well),
> who once freed from civilisation boundaries, quickly developed themselves
> into superhumans, and started sending back home things like "we are coming
> back to whip your arses, get ready you bastards". Sounds to me like
> perfect way to use prime numbers. Unfortunately I keep forgetting the
> title and author, this must be a civilisation-induced block.
>
>

Frederik Pohl's The Gold at the Starbow's End.  1974

BillK

From spike66 at att.net  Sun Feb 10 21:52:56 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 13:52:56 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Google Air
In-Reply-To: <1360516702.66147.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <201302090130.r191UVXH026800@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 <1360418872.45563.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <006101ce0710$ba332bf0$2e9983d0$@att.net>
 <1360516702.66147.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <009701ce07d8$fc375c60$f4a61520$@att.net>

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of The Avantguardian
>...

  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hangar_One_September_2012_-_2.jpg

>?I don't suppose they have started reskinning it eh?

No.  It stands as a big skeleton, a sad reminder of squandered potential.  Read on please.

>?Interestingly enough here is an overview of NASA's plan:

  http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=historicproperties.arc.nasa.gov%2F...%2Fhangar1_carp_20111215.pdf&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&sqi=2&ved=0CD0QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fhistoricproperties.arc.nasa.gov%2Fdownloads%2Fhangar1_carp_20111215.pdf&ei=k8kXUdmLL8LIiwKTxoGQAg&usg=AFQjCNH4a451UdNinMsf68XU1Fmt2Ige_A&bvm=bv.42080656,d.cGE

Ja.  Our generation has mismanaged our resources.  Do let us face our own blame my friends.  We blew it.

>?Of the options on page 92, only the ones that keep it in use as an airship hangar will be of any use to us. But I would opt to *modernize* it in lieu of restoring it to historical specs?  Stuart LaForge

Historical specs.  Avant, you touch on a painful topic for me.  The historical societies of the Silicon Valley did so many wacky things I am astonished, appalled.  For instance, a number of years ago, there was a big debate over some properties which had been tagged for historical preservation.  It seemed like such an oddball collection of stuff, what they chose to preserve and what they chose to throw away.  For instance, two examples of stuff that was preserved: a hotdog stand over next to San Jose State U which is orange roughly spherical structure, built in the 1930s.  OK I kinda get that, generations of students bought hotdogs and orange juice at the orange.  So, OK whatever you want, save the silly thing, we don?t have much around here that predates about 1960.  

Next they chose a neon sign motel that advertised this particular cheapy inn had a pool.  The neon sign of a diving woman in  the old-style one-piece bathing suit and a cap.  The place was built in 1955, and this sign was an example of classic urban kitsch.  So the orange stays, and the diving woman neon sign stays.

Now, what about the laboratory where Kilby and Noyce INVENTED the freaking INTEGRATED CIRCUIT?  That lab was built in 1950, so it would qualify as a historic structure by Silicon Valley standards.  But that wasn?t preserved.  Apparently the most important development since multicellular life was considered of insufficient historical value.  There is a sign in the parking lot (at least most of the building is still there) noting the fact, but the remaining building itself is now a Mexican vegetable stand and small grocery store.

That whole orange hotdog stand/neon diving woman/integrated circuit birthplace fiasco kicked up quite the controversy when it happened.  It would have cost so very little to buy that building and set up a shrine out front, so that we geeks don?t need to get our knees muddy as we worship in the rain out in the parking lot.

Every time I drive over by San Antonio Ave, I feel so unworthy.  It feels like sacred ground, that I should remove my shoes.  No, removing my shoes would be so insufficient to show the appropriate respect for the holiness of that ground.  I should take off more, to demonstrate the awe I feel just being on the site of that place.  But I don?t want to cause a stir with the grocery patrons asking, ?por qu? est? all? un hombre desnudo que adora el edificio sobre sus rodillas en el ?rea de aparcamiento?

spiko

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From rtomek at ceti.pl  Sun Feb 10 22:13:09 2013
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Sun, 10 Feb 2013 23:13:09 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
 <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
 <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
 <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

Message-ID: 

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013, BillK wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 10, 2013 at 8:44 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> > Goedelized messages had been used by crew of one fictional s-f-spaceship,
> > sent with mission to nonexistant planetary system (if I remember well),
> > who once freed from civilisation boundaries, quickly developed themselves
> > into superhumans, and started sending back home things like "we are coming
> > back to whip your arses, get ready you bastards". Sounds to me like
> > perfect way to use prime numbers. Unfortunately I keep forgetting the
> > title and author, this must be a civilisation-induced block.
> >
> >
> 
> Frederik Pohl's The Gold at the Starbow's End.  1974
> 
> 
> BillK

Wow, thanks! Of course I will forget it soon, again. Maybe I should 
re-read it.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **

From rtomek at ceti.pl  Mon Feb 11 00:33:03 2013
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:33:03 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ExI] [tt]  2^57885161-1 (fwd)
Message-ID: 

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 01:28:00 +0100 (CET)
From: Tomasz Rola 
To: Damien Broderick 
Cc: Tomasz Rola , Transhuman Tech 
Subject: Re: [tt] [ExI] 2^57885161-1 (fwd)

On Sun, 10 Feb 2013, Damien Broderick wrote:

> On 2/10/2013 3:14 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> > Goedelized messages had been used by crew of one fictional s-f-spaceship,
> > sent with mission to nonexistant planetary system (if I remember well),
> > who once freed from civilisation boundaries, quickly developed themselves
> > into superhumans, and started sending back home things like "we are coming
> > back to whip your arses, get ready you bastards". Sounds to me like
> > perfect way to use prime numbers. Unfortunately I keep forgetting the
> > title and author, this must be a civilisation-induced block.
> 
> Fred Pohl's STARBURST.

Thanks! BillK have hinted on ExI about "The Gold at the Starbow's End", by 
Pohl, too. From what gog told me, seems like you are both right, with 
"Starburst" being elongated version of "The Gold".

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Feb 11 11:13:13 2013
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 12:13:13 +0100
Subject: [ExI] China and power satellites
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: 

On 6 February 2013 04:48, Keith Henson  wrote:

> I can't say exactly how I have come to the conclusion that this from
> Nov. of last year is important
>
>
> http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-11-02/india/34877401_1_space-solar-power-space-collaboration-v-ponraj
>
> But I have reasons to think it is.
>
> It could be that the world changed last Nov. 2 and we just have not
> yet noticed it.
>

Sounds promising.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From spike66 at att.net  Mon Feb 11 21:06:10 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:06:10 -0800
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <004401ce07ac$a73cebc0$f5b6c340$@att.net>
References: 
 <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
 <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
 <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 <005601ce0612$875efb90$961cf2b0$@att.net>

 <010901ce0679$5d4697c0$17d3c740$@att.net>

 <004401ce07ac$a73cebc0$f5b6c340$@att.net>
Message-ID: <003601ce089b$9f283ad0$dd78b070$@att.net>

On Behalf Of spike
...

>>...Hey, I'm with you Spike. I'm just curious about real significance of
these huge primes. -Dave
_______________________________________________

>...Dave that thing about scaring away ravenous extraterrestrials thing is
really working.  We have been sending out EM signals for nearly a century,
and longer if you count all the stuff Tesla and the boys were doing, and yet
so far every alien invader has apparently been frightened away by all our
mighty Mersenne primes...spike

_______________________________________________

Further evidence that the MPs are scaring away ETs:

http://main.aol.com/2013/02/06/earth-like-planets-are-ri_n_2637842.html?ncid
=txtlnkusaolp00000058

If earthlike planets are far more numerous and closer than we had previously
supposed, then they might have had time to intercept and interpret our EM
signals, prepare an invasion force and start this way, but then if very
close by, would have veered off.  Far more likely, their invasion force
would be signals sent at the speed of light which if interpreted correctly
by us, would be instructions on how to create copies of the invaders here,
rather than ET physically moving the atoms across interstellar distances.
No need to come here if they can email themselves here.

spike 

From atymes at gmail.com  Mon Feb 11 21:48:15 2013
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 13:48:15 -0800
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <003601ce089b$9f283ad0$dd78b070$@att.net>
References: 
 <1360253611.72028.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <201302072219.r17MJnkN001869@andromeda.ziaspace.com>
 <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
 <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 <005601ce0612$875efb90$961cf2b0$@att.net>

 <010901ce0679$5d4697c0$17d3c740$@att.net>

 <004401ce07ac$a73cebc0$f5b6c340$@att.net>
 <003601ce089b$9f283ad0$dd78b070$@att.net>
Message-ID: 

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 1:06 PM, spike  wrote:
> Far more likely, their invasion force
> would be signals sent at the speed of light which if interpreted correctly
> by us, would be instructions on how to create copies of the invaders here,
> rather than ET physically moving the atoms across interstellar distances.

Way too much that can go wrong with that.  For one, those who have the
capability to follow technical instructions at that level, also tend to have the
capability and motivation to shut things down if the assembled things go
out of control - potential to make the things mindless, and thus unable to
invade before they are understood, aside.

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Feb 12 02:10:21 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:10:21 -0800
Subject: [ExI] scientific ignorance in the usa
Message-ID: <009e01ce08c6$1d5f6160$581e2420$@att.net>

I don't know a more appalling example than a new anchor asking if meteors
are a result of global warming:

http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/cnn-anchor-wonders-bill-nye-di
d-global-warming-send-asteroid-near-earth

Notice Bill Nye struggling to rescue the silly goof with that meteorology
root word comment.  He is such a nice guy.  The ignorance displayed by this
anchor must set a record of some kind.

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From deimtee at optusnet.com.au  Tue Feb 12 07:17:41 2013
From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (david)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 18:17:41 +1100
Subject: [ExI] scientific ignorance in the usa
In-Reply-To: <009e01ce08c6$1d5f6160$581e2420$@att.net>
References: <009e01ce08c6$1d5f6160$581e2420$@att.net>
Message-ID: <20130212181741.741a1e70@jarrah>

On Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:10:21 -0800
"spike"  wrote:

>  
> 
> I don't know a more appalling example than a new anchor asking if
> meteors are a result of global warming:
> 
>  
> 
> http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2013-02/cnn-anchor-wonders-bill-nye-di
> d-global-warming-send-asteroid-near-earth
> 
>  
> 
> Notice Bill Nye struggling to rescue the silly goof with that
> meteorology root word comment.  He is such a nice guy.  The ignorance
> displayed by this anchor must set a record of some kind.
> 
>  
> 
> spike
> 

Hi, 

In Oz that site redirects to popsci.com.au, who don't have the article. 
For those not in the US who would like to see the video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxe8_auu8YU

Text of the article below:

CNN Anchor Asks Bill Nye If Global Warming Had Anything To Do With A
Near-Earth Asteroid

by Noah Rothman | 9:44 am, February 10th, 2013

Those who believe that global warming is dire, warn that this
phenomenon represents a major threat to life on earth but is global
warming also a threat beyond our planet? On the face of it, the
?global? aspect of global warming would lead one to believe that the
threat of climate change is somewhat localized. For one CNN anchor,
however, the challenges posed by global warming extend out into the
solar system where they somehow created the circumstances that led to a
near-earth asteroid just missing the planet.

RELATED: Andrea Mitchell Asks Al Gore How A Global Warming ?Prophet?
Could Sell His Network To Oil Producing Nation

After wrapping up a Saturday afternoon segment on the impact climate
change may have had on the extreme winter weather that hit the
Northeast this weekend, CNN anchor Deb Feyerick turned to a feature on
a large asteroid that will just miss earth as it passes by.

?We want to bring in our science guy, Bill Nye, and talk about
something else that?s falling from the sky, and that is an asteroid,?
said Feyerick. ?What?s coming our way? Is this the effect of, perhaps,
global warming? Or is this just some meteoric occasion??

?Except it?s all science,? Nye said rescuing Feyerick. ?The word
meteorology and the word meteor come from the same root, so??

Nye went on to discuss the asteroid which has missed impacting earth by
15 minutes. He says if this body were to impact over a populated area
like New York City, that municipality would be completely leveled.

Watch the clip below via CNN:

From anders at aleph.se  Tue Feb 12 09:34:18 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:34:18 +0000
Subject: [ExI] scientific ignorance in the usa
In-Reply-To: <009e01ce08c6$1d5f6160$581e2420$@att.net>
References: <009e01ce08c6$1d5f6160$581e2420$@att.net>
Message-ID: <511A0C9A.3000803@aleph.se>

On 12/02/2013 02:10, spike wrote:
>
> I don't know a more appalling example than a new anchor asking if 
> meteors are a result of global warming:
>

To be honest, given the range of things blamed on climate change it 
might not be too unreasonable. Just look at 
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/warmlist.htm - a lot of the sources are 
*really* bad, but that will be hard to tell for most people. Even when 
you actually go for peer reviewed publications you get plenty of 
apparent contradictions ( 
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/03/the-big-self-parodying-climate-change-blame-list/ 
), and most input people get is the far more crazy and extreme popular 
media. Which are manned by journalists who get their world-view from media.

Hmm, maybe I should bring this up when I am on radio about the NEO 
tomorrow evening.

In fact, given that higher solar activity can expand the atmosphere and 
cause satellites to spiral in, maybe a hotter atmosphere will be able to 
catch a few extra NEOs? (No, I don't think the effect matters)

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From anders at aleph.se  Tue Feb 12 09:38:21 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 09:38:21 +0000
Subject: [ExI] A Vindication of the Rights of Machines
Message-ID: <511A0D8D.60202@aleph.se>

FYI about a lecture, since some of you might be in the Chicago area. 
Now, Gunkel is of course not too far out by our standards - he is a 
machine ethics guy, rather than a radical AGI proponent, but that 
actually makes his case more interesting.

Personally I think machine rights make sense when the machine can 
understand them, something that is pretty far away (AGI complete?). Some 
machines might be moral patients (i.e. we might not be morally allowed 
to treat them badly, for some kinds of bad) much earlier - I am arguing 
this especially for early uploading experiments, but it might apply to 
some other systems. Many machines are also moral proxies: they are not 
moral agents nor responsible, but they are proxies for a moral agent and 
that person extends their responsibility through the machine.

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: 	[announce at iacap.org] Lecture in Chicago - 14 Feb 2013
Date: 	Mon, 11 Feb 2013 11:59:42 -0600
From: 	David GUNKEL 
To: 	

Please distribute to anyone who might be interested:
*
Citizen Robot: A Vindication of the Rights of Machines*
Cultural Studies Colloquium Series with David J. Gunkel

Columbia College Chicago
Thursday, February 14 at 4:00pm to 6:00pm
Collins Hall, Room 602 624 S. Michigan, Chicago, Illinois
http://events.colum.edu/calendar/day/2013/2/14

*Abstract: *Whether we recognize it or not, we are in the midst of a 
robot invasion. Machines are now everywhere and doing everything. They 
manufacture our automobiles and other consumer products. They make 
decisions concerning finances and manage our retirement savings. They 
play match maker, connecting us to our one true love. And they 
effectively select the books we read, the music we hear, and the films 
we watch. As these artifacts increasingly come to occupy influential 
positions in contemporary culture, we will need to ask ourselves some 
rather difficult questions: At what point might a robot or algorithm be 
held responsible for the decisions it makes or the actions it deploys? 
When, in other words, would it make sense to say ?EURoeIt?EUR^(TM)s the 
computer?EUR^(TM)s fault??EUR? Likewise, at what point might we have to 
seriously consider extending rights?EUR"civil, moral and legal 
standing?EUR"to these socially active devices? When, in other words, 
would it no longer be considered non-sense to suggest something like 
?EURoeequal rights for machines??EUR? Although these questions are a 
staple in science fiction, we have already passed the tipping point. 
This presentation will demonstrate why it not only makes sense to speak 
of the vindication of the rights of machines but also why avoiding this 
subject could be considered immoral.

*David J. Gunkel* is an award winning author and teacher specializing in 
information technology and ethics. He holds the position of Presidential 
Teaching Professor in the Department of Communication at Northern 
Illinois University and is the author of /Hacking Cyberspace /(Westview, 
2001); /Thinking Otherwise: Philosophy, Communication, Technology/ 
(Purdue University Press, 2007); and /The Machine Question: Critical 
Perspectives on AI, Robots and Ethics/ (MIT Press, 2012).

David J. Gunkel
Presidential Teaching Professor
Department of Communication
Northern Illinois University
http://www.gunkelweb.com/gunkel.html
dgunkel at niu.edu
815-753-7004
----------------------------
The Machine Question (MIT 2012)
http://machinequestion.org

International Journal of Zizek Studies
http://zizekstudies.org
----------------------------

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Feb 12 10:20:23 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:20:23 +0000
Subject: [ExI] A Vindication of the Rights of Machines
In-Reply-To: <511A0D8D.60202@aleph.se>
References: <511A0D8D.60202@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 9:38 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> Personally I think machine rights make sense when the machine can
> understand them, something that is pretty far away (AGI complete?). Some
> machines might be moral patients (i.e. we might not be morally allowed to
> treat them badly, for some kinds of bad) much earlier - I am arguing this
> especially for early uploading experiments, but it might apply to some other
> systems. Many machines are also moral proxies: they are not moral agents nor
> responsible, but they are proxies for a moral agent and that person extends
> their responsibility through the machine.
>

Now that Watson is starting to produce recommendations for cancer
treatment plans, who gets blamed for mistakes?

For many years staff have used the 'computer error' excuse for every
incompetent treatment of customers. Even big banks losing millions in
wild trading deals blame the computer.

So, yes, machines will get the blame until they can argue back and
make a case for the defence.

BillK

From eugen at leitl.org  Tue Feb 12 11:31:57 2013
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:31:57 +0100
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
 <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 <005601ce0612$875efb90$961cf2b0$@att.net>

 <010901ce0679$5d4697c0$17d3c740$@att.net>

 <004401ce07ac$a73cebc0$f5b6c340$@att.net>
 <003601ce089b$9f283ad0$dd78b070$@att.net>

Message-ID: <20130212113157.GL6172@leitl.org>

On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 01:48:15PM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote:

> Way too much that can go wrong with that.  For one, those who have the
> capability to follow technical instructions at that level, also tend to have the
> capability and motivation to shut things down if the assembled things go

Right, just as there is no malware on the Internet. Absolutely none.
We can deal with threats created by bored terrestrial teenagers
and contain them. That 1/3rd to 2/3rd of all systems are under 
somebody's elses control with their owners being none the wiser
is pure fantasy.

> out of control - potential to make the things mindless, and thus unable to

Advanced cultures can't engineer emergence. I mean it's obvious: we can't,
so nobody else can possibly do it. Same thing with DIY aliens, aka
AI containment. Regardless how smart, we can contain them.

> invade before they are understood, aside.

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Feb 12 11:53:48 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 11:53:48 +0000
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <20130212113157.GL6172@leitl.org>
References: <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
 <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 <005601ce0612$875efb90$961cf2b0$@att.net>

 <010901ce0679$5d4697c0$17d3c740$@att.net>

 <004401ce07ac$a73cebc0$f5b6c340$@att.net>
 <003601ce089b$9f283ad0$dd78b070$@att.net>

 <20130212113157.GL6172@leitl.org>
Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Eugen Leitl  wrote:
> Right, just as there is no malware on the Internet. Absolutely none.
> We can deal with threats created by bored terrestrial teenagers
> and contain them. That 1/3rd to 2/3rd of all systems are under
> somebody's elses control with their owners being none the wiser
> is pure fantasy.
> Advanced cultures can't engineer emergence. I mean it's obvious: we can't,
> so nobody else can possibly do it. Same thing with DIY aliens, aka
> AI containment. Regardless how smart, we can contain them.
>

Yup.  I was going to say, How can we expect aliens from light years
away to send instructions in Mandarin that we can understand?  The
alien intelligence level required to understand our civilisation to
that extent is very high. If they can do that, they probably know much
better methods of invasion.

(Ignoring for the sake of discussion my expectation that advanced
intelligences don't do invasions. Or, at least not invasions like we
are used to. Can uplift be considered an invasion?).

BillK

From anders at aleph.se  Tue Feb 12 13:21:41 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 13:21:41 +0000
Subject: [ExI] A Vindication of the Rights of Machines
In-Reply-To: 
References: <511A0D8D.60202@aleph.se>

Message-ID: <511A41E5.4090109@aleph.se>

On 12/02/2013 10:20, BillK wrote:
> Now that Watson is starting to produce recommendations for cancer
> treatment plans, who gets blamed for mistakes?

Blame can be moral and legal. No doubt the doctor responsible for the 
treatment is legally responsible: if Watson suggests something crazy he 
is expected to catch it. If things go badly the doctor might get sued 
for neglience, which he will then try to deflect by arguing that he was 
following best practice (in the UK, likely according to the Bolam test 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolam_v_Friern_Hospital_Management_Committee ) 
and perhaps even try passing on the blame on the IBM team (as per 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolitho_v_City_and_Hackney_Health_Authority 
). Messy, but basically a question of what expertise a doctor should 
follow. (Can you tell that I attended a lecture on this a few days ago? :-)

Moral blame is more fun for us ethicists. Moral agents can be 
blameworthy, since they perform moral actions and are commonly thought 
to be able to respond to the blame. If you cannot change your actions 
because of praise or blame you are likely not a moral agent. So they 
need 1) to be able to change their behavior due to learning new 
information, and 2) understand moral blame - just having reinforcement 
learning doesn't count.

> For many years staff have used the 'computer error' excuse for every
> incompetent treatment of customers. Even big banks losing millions in
> wild trading deals blame the computer.
>
> So, yes, machines will get the blame until they can argue back and
> make a case for the defence.

Exactly. Right now the complicated moral proxyhood of machines means 
that responsibility gets so spread out that nobody is responsible. This 
is called the "many hands problem", and is of course quite the opposite 
of a problem to many organisations: the inability to find a responsible 
party means that they have impunity. In fact, a machine that could take 
the blame might be *bad* from this perspective, since that means that 
responsibility might stop being diffuse.

I think blameworthy machines are going to be hard to make, however. An 
AGI might very well be able to change its behavior based on its own 
decisions or what it learns, but might have a hard time understanding 
human blame concepts since it has a fundamentally alien outlook and 
motivation system.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Feb 12 14:22:00 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 06:22:00 -0800
Subject: [ExI] scientific ignorance in the usa
In-Reply-To: <511A0C9A.3000803@aleph.se>
References: <009e01ce08c6$1d5f6160$581e2420$@att.net>
 <511A0C9A.3000803@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <003f01ce092c$528768e0$f7963aa0$@att.net>

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg

>.In fact, given that higher solar activity can expand the atmosphere and
cause satellites to spiral in, maybe a hotter atmosphere will be able to
catch a few extra NEOs? (No, I don't think the effect matters) --  Anders
Sandberg,

{8^D  Harrrarararrrr.

Owww Anders, careful with that one, me lad.  That idea would hint that at
least part of global warming and terrestrial climate has something to do
with solar activity, which is not caused by humans.  That is a highly
politically incorrect notion in the states.  Of course, if you could figure
out how solar activity is caused by or influenced by humans, then you will
be a hero.

spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From atymes at gmail.com  Tue Feb 12 18:34:42 2013
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 10:34:42 -0800
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: <51143793.5050707@aleph.se>
 <201302080042.r180gadW010659@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

 <005601ce0612$875efb90$961cf2b0$@att.net>

 <010901ce0679$5d4697c0$17d3c740$@att.net>

 <004401ce07ac$a73cebc0$f5b6c340$@att.net>
 <003601ce089b$9f283ad0$dd78b070$@att.net>

 <20130212113157.GL6172@leitl.org>

Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:53 AM, BillK  wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Eugen Leitl  wrote:
>> Right, just as there is no malware on the Internet.

Analogy failure.  Standards for security for software are inherently
laxer than standards for security for hardware, because misbehaving
software is far less obvious.  If someone points a gun at you, there
is no mistaking that that's a bad thing.  If someone sends you a
link to malware, that's not immediately obviously so bad.

Further, I said "at that level".  Copying and pasting someone else's
malware script is far simpler than engineering nanotech.  A better
analogy would be breaking into a foreign nation's nuclear launch
chain of command and firing their nukes at one's enemies.  Notice
that that has not happened yet, nor is it listed as a serious concern
by military cybersecurity types - even when they're hyping up the
dangers to justify their budget: it'd be too far beyond the actual
threat.

>> Advanced cultures can't engineer emergence.

Emergence isn't the same thing as invasion.  If an AI emerges,
how do you guarantee its loyalties?  Further, an emergent AI
by definition does not have the memories, personality, or
identity of a specific alien, nor any chain of identity linking it
back to the would-be invaders.

Sure, perhaps you can nudge it to have certain sympathies
and modes of thought that might lead it toward wanting to ally
with similar-thinking aliens.  But that's not an "invasion" so
much as "making the humans come to the aliens"...

> (Ignoring for the sake of discussion my expectation that advanced
> intelligences don't do invasions. Or, at least not invasions like we
> are used to. Can uplift be considered an invasion?).

...or, indeed, "uplift".

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Feb 13 13:30:59 2013
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 14:30:59 +0100
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: <005601ce0612$875efb90$961cf2b0$@att.net>

 <010901ce0679$5d4697c0$17d3c740$@att.net>

 <004401ce07ac$a73cebc0$f5b6c340$@att.net>
 <003601ce089b$9f283ad0$dd78b070$@att.net>

 <20130212113157.GL6172@leitl.org>

Message-ID: <20130213133059.GT6172@leitl.org>

On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 10:34:42AM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 3:53 AM, BillK  wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 12, 2013 at 11:31 AM, Eugen Leitl  wrote:
> >> Right, just as there is no malware on the Internet.
> 
> Analogy failure.  Standards for security for software are inherently

Comprehension failure.

> laxer than standards for security for hardware, because misbehaving

Nothing that a god gives you is safe. You've already lost by
believing expressing the instructions in a subset safely
sandboxes it.

It is never safe.

> software is far less obvious.  If someone points a gun at you, there
> is no mistaking that that's a bad thing.  If someone sends you a
> link to malware, that's not immediately obviously so bad.

Somebody keeps sending you increasingly useful things.
Useful things = by definition outside of sandbox. Emergence is about 
engineering nonobvious side effects constructively. Somewhere
right behind your back.

The world is made of swiss cheese. Most people are not aware,
so containment is impossible.

> Further, I said "at that level".  Copying and pasting someone else's
> malware script is far simpler than engineering nanotech.  A better

They did that a few gigayears ago.

> analogy would be breaking into a foreign nation's nuclear launch
> chain of command and firing their nukes at one's enemies.  Notice

Analogy failure.

> that that has not happened yet, nor is it listed as a serious concern
> by military cybersecurity types - even when they're hyping up the
> dangers to justify their budget: it'd be too far beyond the actual
> threat.
> 
> >> Advanced cultures can't engineer emergence.
> 
> Emergence isn't the same thing as invasion.  If an AI emerges,

When cooking with recipes made by gods, it is.

> how do you guarantee its loyalties?  Further, an emergent AI

Because reaching your target attractor is deterministic, if you
know how. 

> by definition does not have the memories, personality, or
> identity of a specific alien, nor any chain of identity linking it
> back to the would-be invaders.

The recipes never stopped coming.

> Sure, perhaps you can nudge it to have certain sympathies
> and modes of thought that might lead it toward wanting to ally
> with similar-thinking aliens.  But that's not an "invasion" so
> much as "making the humans come to the aliens"...

Actually, nobody will bother sending messages, as every self-rep
system has amplification factor in excess of 10^3 at each hop.

Hence, you will never receive blueprints.

From rtomek at ceti.pl  Wed Feb 13 23:29:47 2013
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 00:29:47 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <20130213133059.GT6172@leitl.org>
References: <005601ce0612$875efb90$961cf2b0$@att.net>

 <010901ce0679$5d4697c0$17d3c740$@att.net>

 <004401ce07ac$a73cebc0$f5b6c340$@att.net>
 <003601ce089b$9f283ad0$dd78b070$@att.net>

 <20130212113157.GL6172@leitl.org>

 <20130213133059.GT6172@leitl.org>
Message-ID: 

On Wed, 13 Feb 2013, Eugen Leitl wrote:

[...]
> > laxer than standards for security for hardware, because misbehaving
> 
> Nothing that a god gives you is safe. You've already lost by
> believing expressing the instructions in a subset safely
> sandboxes it.
> 
> It is never safe.

Not only it is unsafe to accept god's gifts, it is also unsafe to reject 
them. Both reactions could have been modeled and counted upon.

[...]
> > >> Advanced cultures can't engineer emergence.
> > 
> > Emergence isn't the same thing as invasion.  If an AI emerges,
> 
> When cooking with recipes made by gods, it is.
> 
> > how do you guarantee its loyalties?  Further, an emergent AI
> 
> Because reaching your target attractor is deterministic, if you
> know how. 

Ok. So if this happens, we are cooked, I agree. It is hard to defend 
against bunch of butterflies deliberately placed over period of eons, 
collectively contributing to the birth of Maxwell and Marconi.

Assuming this is what you mean.

> > by definition does not have the memories, personality, or
> > identity of a specific alien, nor any chain of identity linking it
> > back to the would-be invaders.
> 
> The recipes never stopped coming.

How so?

> > Sure, perhaps you can nudge it to have certain sympathies
> > and modes of thought that might lead it toward wanting to ally
> > with similar-thinking aliens.  But that's not an "invasion" so
> > much as "making the humans come to the aliens"...
> 
> Actually, nobody will bother sending messages, as every self-rep
> system has amplification factor in excess of 10^3 at each hop.
> 
> Hence, you will never receive blueprints.

Unclear. BTW, where does 10^3 come from?

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **

From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Feb 14 09:57:32 2013
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 10:57:32 +0100
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: <010901ce0679$5d4697c0$17d3c740$@att.net>

 <004401ce07ac$a73cebc0$f5b6c340$@att.net>
 <003601ce089b$9f283ad0$dd78b070$@att.net>

 <20130212113157.GL6172@leitl.org>

 <20130213133059.GT6172@leitl.org>

Message-ID: <20130214095732.GP6172@leitl.org>

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 12:29:47AM +0100, Tomasz Rola wrote:

> > It is never safe.
> 
> Not only it is unsafe to accept god's gifts, it is also unsafe to reject 
> them. Both reactions could have been modeled and counted upon.

Yes, but if you're not executing the recipe you'll get
default behaviour. By refusing to enter the stage the
play never happens.

Of course, collectively such recipes would always be followed
by somebody, as perfect control is impossible. In fact, 
some will execute even completely obscure plans just 
because they can.

> > Because reaching your target attractor is deterministic, if you
> > know how. 
> 
> Ok. So if this happens, we are cooked, I agree. It is hard to defend 
> against bunch of butterflies deliberately placed over period of eons, 
> collectively contributing to the birth of Maxwell and Marconi.
> 
> Assuming this is what you mean.

Nothing quite so far-fetched, but constructive interference
of side effects. By using multiple, perfectly innocuous (and
extremely useful) gifts you'll get an emergence of fertile
seed.

> > > by definition does not have the memories, personality, or
> > > identity of a specific alien, nor any chain of identity linking it
> > > back to the would-be invaders.
> > 
> > The recipes never stopped coming.
> 
> How so?

If you fire messages into the ether, you can of course 
continue to provide bootup instructions to anything that is
capable to listen.

> > > Sure, perhaps you can nudge it to have certain sympathies
> > > and modes of thought that might lead it toward wanting to ally
> > > with similar-thinking aliens.  But that's not an "invasion" so
> > > much as "making the humans come to the aliens"...
> > 
> > Actually, nobody will bother sending messages, as every self-rep
> > system has amplification factor in excess of 10^3 at each hop.
> > 
> > Hence, you will never receive blueprints.
> 
> Unclear. BTW, where does 10^3 come from?

If you do the math, then a stellar output is sufficient to
push a large (though not very large) number of relativistic
seeds simultaneously. If you autoamplification factor is
several orders of magnitude at each step than saturating the
universe comes at an infinitesimal cost to the originator.

The costs to send a critical number of messages vs. a seed
makes seeding a much more cost-effective proposition. And
almost every system with debris would be fertile, no need
to wait for the lucky time window (where you can listen and
act upon, but not yet are expansive yourself) which is like
hunting unicorns.

From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Feb 14 11:13:47 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:13:47 +0000
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <20130214095732.GP6172@leitl.org>
References: <010901ce0679$5d4697c0$17d3c740$@att.net>

 <004401ce07ac$a73cebc0$f5b6c340$@att.net>
 <003601ce089b$9f283ad0$dd78b070$@att.net>

 <20130212113157.GL6172@leitl.org>

 <20130213133059.GT6172@leitl.org>

 <20130214095732.GP6172@leitl.org>
Message-ID: 

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 9:57 AM, Eugen Leitl  wrote:

> If you do the math, then a stellar output is sufficient to
> push a large (though not very large) number of relativistic
> seeds simultaneously. If you autoamplification factor is
> several orders of magnitude at each step than saturating the
> universe comes at an infinitesimal cost to the originator.
>
> The costs to send a critical number of messages vs. a seed
> makes seeding a much more cost-effective proposition. And
> almost every system with debris would be fertile, no need
> to wait for the lucky time window (where you can listen and
> act upon, but not yet are expansive yourself) which is like
> hunting unicorns.
>

Mathematically exactly correct.
Which is why I hold the opinion that civilisations which can control
enough resources to seed the universe are also intelligent enough to
decide not to do that. Or, alternatively, find themselves driven down
a different path. For example, like transcension, or moving to a
nano-scale infinite universe, or even self-destruction, any of which
does not lead to the seeding of the universe.

Obviously, the universe still exists, so by definition all the earlier
civilisations haven't yet seeded the universe. And with our telescopes
we can now see right back in time, almost to the Big Bang. And
everything we see has a natural, non-artificial,  explanation.

The alternative view is either that we are the very first space-faring
civilisation in the universe, or the seeding is underway and it just
hasn't reached us yet, or any part of the universe that we can see.
It is up to you to choose which you think is most likely. I take the
hopeful view that great intelligence doesn't lead to transforming the
universe into their version of paperclips.

BillK

From eugen at leitl.org  Thu Feb 14 13:29:44 2013
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:29:44 +0100
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: <004401ce07ac$a73cebc0$f5b6c340$@att.net>
 <003601ce089b$9f283ad0$dd78b070$@att.net>

 <20130212113157.GL6172@leitl.org>

 <20130213133059.GT6172@leitl.org>

 <20130214095732.GP6172@leitl.org>

Message-ID: <20130214132944.GM6172@leitl.org>

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 11:13:47AM +0000, BillK wrote:

> Mathematically exactly correct.
> Which is why I hold the opinion that civilisations which can control
> enough resources to seed the universe are also intelligent enough to

The decision is out of control, since involving a population
of agents spread over a nucleating area/origin of lighthours to a
lightyear, and does not not need any intelligence.

> decide not to do that. Or, alternatively, find themselves driven down
> a different path. For example, like transcension, or moving to a

All computation requires a physical layer. You need about nm^3
to represent a useful bit, and some energy to compute (reversibility
buys you only so much, and adiabatic computation will likely
be too slow).

> nano-scale infinite universe, or even self-destruction, any of which

No evidence physics permits this. Nonexpansive entities automatically
filter into invisibility and insignificance across the cosmic 
substrate.

> does not lead to the seeding of the universe.
> 
> Obviously, the universe still exists, so by definition all the earlier

The part of the universe where we are looks pristine.

> civilisations haven't yet seeded the universe. And with our telescopes

We're not in anyone's smart light cone.

> we can now see right back in time, almost to the Big Bang. And

The earlier you look, the lower the probablity of nucleation
due to harsher condition and low metallicity.

> everything we see has a natural, non-artificial,  explanation.
> 
> The alternative view is either that we are the very first space-faring
> civilisation in the universe, or the seeding is underway and it just

Any expansion wave would be extremely improbable to observe by
yet subexpansive observers due to the limits of relativistically
expansive wavefront observability and anthropic principle.

> hasn't reached us yet, or any part of the universe that we can see.
> It is up to you to choose which you think is most likely. I take the

We cannot tell what is most likely, since we do not have any data.

> hopeful view that great intelligence doesn't lead to transforming the
> universe into their version of paperclips.

Paperclips are sterile and immutable. Life is not.

From anders at aleph.se  Thu Feb 14 15:22:25 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 15:22:25 +0000
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: <010901ce0679$5d4697c0$17d3c740$@att.net>

 <004401ce07ac$a73cebc0$f5b6c340$@att.net>
 <003601ce089b$9f283ad0$dd78b070$@att.net>

 <20130212113157.GL6172@leitl.org>

 <20130213133059.GT6172@leitl.org>

 <20130214095732.GP6172@leitl.org>

Message-ID: <511D0131.3090404@aleph.se>

On 14/02/2013 11:13, BillK wrote:
> Which is why I hold the opinion that civilisations which can control 
> enough resources to seed the universe are also intelligent enough to 
> decide not to do that. 

It only takes one to break that. Or one individual or group within such 
a civilisation. And the technology needed doesn't have to be 
super-advanced, as per the usual galactic colonization arguments. Once 
you get up to nanotech, enough robotics to make a replicating system and 
good coilguns interstellar and likely intergalactic colonization is very 
doable.

> Or, alternatively, find themselves driven down a different path. For 
> example, like transcension, or moving to a nano-scale infinite 
> universe, or even self-destruction, any of which does not lead to the 
> seeding of the universe.
Again, these explanations need to work for all civilizations and all 
individuals and groups within them. No alien Amish.

> Obviously, the universe still exists, so by definition all the earlier 
> civilisations haven't yet seeded the universe.

Or, if they did, the first group decided they wanted to keep it looking 
natural and uninhabited. Remember, a mere million years of head start 
means you get to set up the rules as you see fit.

The more I think about the Fermi question, the more I lean towards the 
"they are already here", a somewhat paranoid view. Of course, the they 
that is here is very likely just caretaker automation. However, I also 
recognize that this sounds almost like a transhumanist religion: "Look, 
an universe looking uninhabited is so unlikely given what we know about 
planet formation and the evolution of intelligence. So clearly there has 
to be a guiding hand for it - our space overlords! We must follow their 
will, or they will stomp us." ;-)

(In order for a particular early colonizer to dominate enough of the 
universe so that we will not be able to see any Kardashev level III 
civilizations outside of its sphere of influence likely means it had to 
emerge several billion years ago. But by my and Stuart Armstrong's 
calculations it doesn't have to be super-early: a civilisation starting 
five billion years ago would have been able to colonize such a big 
fraction of the nearby universe - out to a gigaparsec - that we would 
have a hard time seeing any hyperscale engineering.)

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Feb 14 16:53:31 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:53:31 +0000
Subject: [ExI] 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <511D0131.3090404@aleph.se>
References: <010901ce0679$5d4697c0$17d3c740$@att.net>

 <004401ce07ac$a73cebc0$f5b6c340$@att.net>
 <003601ce089b$9f283ad0$dd78b070$@att.net>

 <20130212113157.GL6172@leitl.org>

 <20130213133059.GT6172@leitl.org>

 <20130214095732.GP6172@leitl.org>

 <511D0131.3090404@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 3:22 PM, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
> It only takes one to break that. Or one individual or group within such a
> civilisation. And the technology needed doesn't have to be super-advanced,
> as per the usual galactic colonization arguments. Once you get up to
> nanotech, enough robotics to make a replicating system and good coilguns
> interstellar and likely intergalactic colonization is very doable.
>

Correct. That's why there must be more involved than just building
self-replicators and firing them off into the void. Some other failure
point(s) must exist. Not necessarily extinction events, but
alternative paths that avoid seeding the universe. Perhaps different
causes for each civilisation, as each develops differently. Or,
perhaps there is one insurmountable wall that we have not yet
encountered that applies to everyone.

>
> Or, if they did, the first group decided they wanted to keep it looking
> natural and uninhabited. Remember, a mere million years of head start means
> you get to set up the rules as you see fit.
>

Heh! :)   That's like creationists saying that when God created the
world in six days, he also created fossils in order to test the faith
of believers. Occam would say that if all the *universe* looks natural
and undeveloped, then it probably is.

> The more I think about the Fermi question, the more I lean towards the "they
> are already here", a somewhat paranoid view. Of course, the they that is
> here is very likely just caretaker automation. However, I also recognize
> that this sounds almost like a transhumanist religion: "Look, an universe
> looking uninhabited is so unlikely given what we know about planet formation
> and the evolution of intelligence. So clearly there has to be a guiding hand
> for it - our space overlords! We must follow their will, or they will stomp
> us." ;-)
>

I lean more towards the 'something stops everybody' view. Perhaps they
are just having so much fun around Alpha Centauri that they can't be
bothered about elsewhere. :)
By the time we develop to their level of intelligence, we might think
the same way.

BillK

From ablainey at aol.com  Thu Feb 14 16:54:38 2013
From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 11:54:38 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ExI] A Vindication of the Rights of Machines
In-Reply-To: <511A0D8D.60202@aleph.se>
References: <511A0D8D.60202@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <8CFD8EB1B6AF1D8-1370-4A28@webmail-d065.sysops.aol.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: Anders Sandberg 
Sent: Tue, 12 Feb 2013 9:46

              >FYI about a lecture, since some of you might be in the Chicago area.    Now, Gunkel is of course not too far out by our standards - he is a    >machine ethics guy, rather than a radical AGI proponent, but that    actually makes his case more interesting.
    >
    >Personally I think machine rights make sense when the machine can    understand them, something that is pretty far away (AGI >complete?).    Some machines might be moral patients (i.e. we might not be morally    allowed to treat them badly, for some kinds of bad) >much earlier - I    am arguing this especially for early uploading experiments, but it    might apply to some other systems. Many machines >are also moral    proxies: they are not moral agents nor responsible, but they are    proxies for a moral agent and that person extends their    >responsibility through the machine.

I agree that it makes sense for machines to gain rights when they understand them. Historically for humans rights have typically only been granted when they have been claimed and claim of right goes hand in hand with understanding of what that right is and why it is needed. Also historically those claims have been ignored until some form of coercion has been used, whether strike, protest or rebellion.
However there has been a trend of late of humans claiming rights on behalf of others who are incapable. Be that the silent disabled or animals etc. I imagine this trend will rightly continue so it may occur that some decide machines need rights and act as their advocate. I cant see that happening until machines start demonstrating some realistic AI traits. Maybe some will be fooled by a bit of artificial fur and a cute robot face like Gizmo others will wait until a soul has been proven!

One angle I think might be of relevance is the incorporation of companies. The act of incorporation is in essence giving a virtual body and distinct rights to a non living entity. I don't think it is much of a stretch to extend this kind of legal framework to a machine. In fact I think with a savvy lawyer you could probably incorporate a machine today giving it a legal artificial person with limited rights and liability. Then use that status for leveraging other rights, say for example beneficiary rights. 
It wouldn't be the same as giving it human rights as companies still don't have such rights, but in many places they can vote. 
However if you buy into the lawful strawman arguement about "person" being a legal entity created for a human being by way of some fancy government birth certificate which incorporates them. Then all public financial and legal laws then act upon this legal "Person" rather than the natural born human. Then I see no reason why a machine could not also have a "person". Making it fully liable for is actions. 

The issue of moral proxy is really the clincher for me. If responsibility ultimately lies with a human and a machine has no alternative other than to follow a course laid out by humans, then I can see no way that we can call a machine to account. The day when they start recoding themselves and the new code give rise to responsibility, then I think we can call then autonomous enough to be responsible. But then what? Lock them away for a year or two?
How do you punish a machine?
With rights comes responsibility. I can see a lack of useful applicable law being a reason for some not to grant rights to a machine. Whether they are autonomous and intelligent enough or not. If we can't deter a machine from doing bad and have no punishment for it if/when it does, why would we give it freedom of rights that may lead to those outcomes?  

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From anders at aleph.se  Thu Feb 14 18:12:26 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 18:12:26 +0000
Subject: [ExI] A Vindication of the Rights of Machines
In-Reply-To: <8CFD8EB1B6AF1D8-1370-4A28@webmail-d065.sysops.aol.com>
References: <511A0D8D.60202@aleph.se>
 <8CFD8EB1B6AF1D8-1370-4A28@webmail-d065.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <511D290A.3070904@aleph.se>

On 14/02/2013 16:54, ablainey at aol.com wrote:
>
> However there has been a trend of late of humans claiming rights on 
> behalf of others who are incapable. Be that the silent disabled or 
> animals etc. I imagine this trend will rightly continue so it may 
> occur that some decide machines need rights and act as their advocate. 
> I cant see that happening until machines start demonstrating some 
> realistic AI traits. Maybe some will be fooled by a bit of artificial 
> fur and a cute robot face like Gizmoothers will wait until a soul has 
> been proven!

You can also have analogies. In my upcoming paper on upload ethics I 
argue that emulations of animals should be treated as if they had the 
same moral standing as the animal unless we can prove that the emulation 
lack the relevant properties for having moral patienthood. But this is 
because they are analogous to the original. If the AI is something 
unique we have a harder time figuring out its moral status.

>
> One angle I think might be of relevance is the incorporation of 
> companies. The act of incorporation is in essence giving a virtual 
> body and distinct rights to a non living entity. I don't think it is 
> much of a stretch to extend this kind of legal framework to a machine. 
> In fact I think with a savvy lawyer you could probably incorporate a 
> machine today giving it a legal artificial person with limited rights 
> and liability. Then use that status for leveraging other rights, say 
> for example beneficiary rights.

Legal persons are however not moral persons. Nobody says that it is 
wrong for the government to dissolve or split a company, despite the 
misgivings we have about capital punishment. Same thing for legal 
rights: ideally they should track moral rights, but it is a bit random.

> It wouldn't be the same as giving it human rights as companies still 
> don't have such rights, but in many places they can vote.
Where else but the City of London?

>
> The issue of moral proxy is really the clincher for me. If 
> responsibility ultimately lies with a human and a machine has no 
> alternative other than to follow a course laid out by humans, then I 
> can see no way that we can call a machine to account. The day when 
> they start recoding themselves and the new code give rise to 
> responsibility, then I think we can call then autonomous enough to be 
> responsible. But then what? Lock them away for a year or two?
> How do you punish a machine?
This is a real problem. If there is nothing like punishment, there might 
not be any real moral learning. You can have a learning machine that 
gets negative reinforcement and *behaves* right due to this, but it is 
just like a trained animal. The interesting thing is that the negative 
reinforcement doesn't have to be a punishment by our standards, just an 
error signal.

Moral proxies can also misbehave: I tell my device to do A, but it does 
B. This can be because I failed at programming it properly, but it can 
also be because I did not foresee the consequences of my instructions. 
Or the interaction between the instructions and the environment. My 
responsibility is 1) due to how much causal control I have over the 
consequences, and 2) how much I allow consequences to ensue outside my 
causal control.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From rtomek at ceti.pl  Thu Feb 14 18:25:54 2013
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 19:25:54 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of asteroid
	(fwd)
Message-ID: 

[

http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2013/feb/HQ_M13-031_Asteroid_Flyby_Coverage.txt

]

Feb. 13, 2013

Steve Cole 
Headquarters, Washington                                  
202-358-0918 
stephen.e.cole at nasa.gov 

D.C. Agle 
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif. 
818-393-9011 
agle at jpl.nasa.gov 

MEDIA ADVISORY: M13-031

NASA TO CHRONICLE CLOSE EARTH FLYBY OF ASTEROID

PASADENA, Calif. -- NASA Television will provide commentary starting 
at 2 p.m. EST (11 a.m. PST) on Friday, Feb. 15, during the close, but 
safe, flyby of a small near-Earth asteroid named 2012 DA14. NASA 
places a high priority on tracking asteroids and protecting our home 
planet from them. This flyby will provide a unique opportunity for 
researchers to study a near-Earth object up close. 

The half-hour broadcast from NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory (JPL) in 
Pasadena, Calif., will incorporate real-time animation to show the 
location of the asteroid in relation to Earth, along with live or 
near real-time views of the asteroid from observatories in Australia, 
weather permitting. 

At the time of its closest approach to Earth at approximately 2:25 
p.m. EST (11:25 a.m. PST/ 19:25 UTC), the asteroid will be about 
17,150 miles (27,600 kilometers) above Earth's surface. 

The commentary will be available via NASA TV and streamed live online 
at: 

http://www.nasa.gov/ntv 

and 

http://www.ustream.tv/nasajpl2 

In addition to the commentary, near real-time imagery of the 
asteroid's flyby before and after closest approach, made available to 
NASA by astronomers in Australia and Europe, weather permitting, will 
be streamed beginning at about noon EST (9 a.m. PST) and continuing 
through the afternoon at the following website: 

http://www.ustream.tv/nasajpl2 

A Ustream feed of the flyby from a telescope at NASA's Marshall Space 
Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala., will be streamed for three hours 
starting at 9 p.m. EST (8 p.m. CST). To view the feed and ask 
researchers questions about the flyby via Twitter, visit: 

http://www.ustream.tv/channel/nasa-msfc 

The NASA Near Earth Objects (NEO) Program at the agency's headquarters 
in Washington, manages and funds the search, study, and monitoring of 
NEOs, or asteroids and comets, whose orbits periodically bring them 
close to the Earth. NASA's study of NEOs provides important clues to 
understanding the origin of our solar system. The objects also are a 
repository of natural resources and could become waystations for 
future exploration. In collaboration with other external 
organizations, one of the program's key goals is to search and 
hopefully mitigate potential NEO impacts on Earth. JPL conducts the 
NEO program's technical and scientific activities. 

For more information, including graphics and animations showing the 
flyby of 2012 DA14, visit: 

www.nasa.gov/asteroidflyby 

For more information about asteroids and near-Earth objects, visit: 

http://www.jpl.nasa.gov/asteroidwatch 

-end-

From ablainey at aol.com  Thu Feb 14 19:13:22 2013
From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 14:13:22 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ExI] A Vindication of the Rights of Machines
In-Reply-To: <511D290A.3070904@aleph.se>
References: <511A0D8D.60202@aleph.se>
 <8CFD8EB1B6AF1D8-1370-4A28@webmail-d065.sysops.aol.com>
 <511D290A.3070904@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <8CFD8FE7C8830B6-500-2715C@webmail-d138.sysops.aol.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: Anders Sandberg 
Sent: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 18:22

>You can also have analogies. In my upcoming paper on upload ethics I    argue that emulations of animals >should be treated as if they had    the same moral standing as the animal unless we can prove that the    >emulation lack the relevant properties for having moral patienthood.    But this is because they are analogous >to the original. If the AI is    something unique we have a harder time figuring out its moral    status.

Similarly what of the moral status of an incomplete or deficientley uploaded human, do we afford them equal rights to the original? Personally I am tempted to put them in the same unknown moral category as AI.

    >Legal persons are however not moral persons. Nobody says that it is    wrong for the government to dissolve >or split a company, despite the    misgivings we have about capital punishment. Same thing for legal    rights: >ideally they should track moral rights, but it is a bit    random.

Agreed. 

          >>It wouldn't be the same as giving it human rights as companies still don't                have such rights, but in many >>places they                  can vote.

    >Where else but the City of London?

I was under the impression that corporations had limited voting rights in some places in the US? Perhaps a misremembering or misinterpretation on my part. In any case its interesting that a right so dearly held such as voting can be given to a non living thing. While that thing lacks other basic human rights.

    >This is a real problem. If there is nothing like punishment, there    might not be any real moral learning. You >can have a learning    machine that gets negative reinforcement and *behaves* right due to    this, but it is just >like a trained animal. The interesting thing is    that the negative reinforcement doesn't have to be a >punishment by our standards, just an error signal.

Perhaps. I personally have "Brain Hurt" with this area. I can only equate it to the issue of needing to replicate the Human chemistry in uploads or all our error signals such as pain, remorse, jealousy will be lost. To me I cant help but think a simple error signal to a machine is as meaningless as showing a red card to a sportsman who doesn't know what it means. It is only a symbol, the actual punishment only comes from the chemistry it evokes. If we give a machine a symbol of pain, that really won't cut it imho. 
In the same way that if I were immortal and jumped off a building, seeing you hand me a piece of card that says "broken legs" isnt going to stop me walking away. LOL. Even if I do know the rules of the game.
Its a tough one. I think it would depend on what the currency of the machine is (in Dr Phil speak), what the machine holds as valuable. Then using that as leverage for good behavior.
"Bad machine!.....no data for you!"

    >Moral proxies can also misbehave: I tell my device to do A, but it    does B. This can be because I failed at >programming it properly, but    it can also be because I did not foresee the consequences of my    instructions. >Or the interaction between the instructions and the    environment. My responsibility is 1) due to how much >causal control    I have over the consequences, and 2) how much I allow consequences    to ensue outside my >causal control. 

A problem that already exists. I have wondered about the implications of automatic parking available in some cars. Should you engage this parking system and your car *decides* to prang the parked vehicle in front, who is responsible? The car for a bad judgement, You for not applying the breaks, the engineer who designed the physical mechanisms, the software developer or the salesman who told you it was infallible?
I think as such autonomous systems evolve there should and hopefully will be a corresponding evolution of law brought about by liability suits. Im not aware of any yet, but im 100% sure they will appear if they haven't already. Perhaps the stakes are not yet high enough with simple parking mishaps, but when the first self driving car ploughs through a bus stop full of Nuns, the lawyers will no doubt wrestle it out for us. 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From clementlawyer at gmail.com  Thu Feb 14 18:35:28 2013
From: clementlawyer at gmail.com (James Clement)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 13:35:28 -0500
Subject: [ExI] NYC Debate: Bioethicists Hold Public Debate Ban on
 Genetically Engineered Babies
Message-ID: 

Thought this might interest the group: *B*ioethicists Hold Public Debate
Ban on Genetically Engineered Babies.

February 14, 2013

In an early public skirmish in what may well become a long battle over
ethical questions that are at the core of human biology, medicine, and
research, four intellectuals gathered on a stage in New York City last
night to debate whether or not there should be a ban on the use of genetic
engineering to improve human babies*.*

Hosted by Intelligence Squared US
,
the debate took up whether or not there should be an outright ban on all
genetic engineering for enhancing babies, with one team charged with
arguing that such engineering is unethical, dangerous, and immoral, and
should be banned, and the other side saying that it isn't any of these
things, and that a ban would be damaging to science and medicine*.*

Arguing in favor of a ban were Tufts University Professor and Chair of the
Council for Responsible Genetics Sheldon Krimsky and Robert Winston, a
professor at Imperial College, London, and a member of the House of Lords,
and they said the complexity of the human genome can lead to genetic
engineering mistakes and errors and yield unknown consequences, that
fetuses and zygotes are unable to consent, and that there may be other
options for treating genetic diseases or for prospective parents*.*

They also argued that abuse of genetic technologies could lead to a quest
for perfection through the engineering of 'designer babies' and starting a
slippery slope that may bring about eugenics programs like those pursued by
Hitler and those explored in the film *Gattaca**.*

Opposing a ban, Duke University Law Professor Nita Farahany and Princeton
University Professor Lee Silver held that a ban on genetic engineering
would be immoral because it would deny people access to treatments for a
range of genetic diseases that cause tremendous pain and suffering*.* If
there are examples where genetic engineering could save lives, or make sick
babies healthy, then such a ban would be an untenable policy, they said*.*

Farahany said that if such a ban were enacted in the US, it would be left
behind other parts of the world, where Americans would travel to have
genetic treatments and where groundbreaking research would be conducted,
and that it could eventually lead to back-alley operations where people
seek out the banned treatments so they can have healthy babies*.*

Silver argued that genetic engineering is not a transgression against
nature, because Mother Nature has not provided humans with a perfect
genome, does not care one whit about the health of our children, and has
essentially "waged all-out war" on children in part by making all people
hosts to at least a hundred risk variants for genetic diseases*.*

Farahany, who serves on the Presidential Commission for the Study of
Bioethical Issues, also stressed that reproductive decisions are private
matters and that it would be far better to use public policy to set the
ethical lines that may or may not be crossed by doctors or scientists than
to enact a ban*.*

Silver waved off the concerns about the potential abuses of genetic
engineering by pointing out that pharmaceutical drugs are abused all the
time and they are not banned*.*

Much of the debate centered on the process of mitochondrial transfer, which
is already being used*.*

"It is safe*.* It works. It eliminates massive childhood suffering,"
Farahany said*.*

"Nita, just bear in mind that the children who were born of mitochondrial
transfer are still children, and the real problem, of course, is what
happens to them when they are adults*.* We don't know," Winston replied.

"Well, happily they will get to become adults*.* They won't become adults
without this option," Farahany responded*.*

Generalized uncertainties about the possible impacts of genetic engineering
treatments simply should not be an argument for banning them, she said*.*

"I have news for you," Farahany added*.* "Every single time we decide to
reproduce there is uncertainty*.* We have no idea how this unique
combination of individuals is going to result*.* And we certainly aren't
going to say that we are going to ban natural reproduction*.*"
* *

Best regards

James
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From anders at aleph.se  Thu Feb 14 21:39:20 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 21:39:20 +0000
Subject: [ExI] A Vindication of the Rights of Machines
In-Reply-To: <8CFD8FE7C8830B6-500-2715C@webmail-d138.sysops.aol.com>
References: <511A0D8D.60202@aleph.se>
 <8CFD8EB1B6AF1D8-1370-4A28@webmail-d065.sysops.aol.com>
 <511D290A.3070904@aleph.se>
 <8CFD8FE7C8830B6-500-2715C@webmail-d138.sysops.aol.com>
Message-ID: <511D5988.1060800@aleph.se>

On 14/02/2013 19:13, ablainey at aol.com wrote:
>
> >You can also have analogies. In my upcoming paper on upload ethics I 
> argue that emulations of animals >should be treated as if they had the 
> same moral standing as the animal unless we can prove that the 
> >emulation lack the relevant properties for having moral patienthood. 
> But this is because they are analogous >to the original. If the AI is 
> something unique we have a harder time figuring out its moral status.
>
> Similarly what of the moral status of an incomplete or deficientley 
> uploaded human, do we afford them equal rightsto the 
> original?Personally I am tempted to put them in the same unknown moral 
> category as AI.

Well, if you want to be consistent you should treat early human uploads 
the same as animal uploads: assume they have the same moral standing as 
the original, and then check if there are relevant impairments. So if 
the upload doesn't function, it might be equivalent to a person in 
persistent vegetative state or suffering massive brain damage. The 
interesting option is that you can freeze it and try repairing someday 
later (= super cryonics).

>
> >This is a real problem. If there is nothing like punishment, there 
> might not be any real moral learning. You >can have a learning machine 
> that gets negative reinforcement and *behaves* right due to this, but 
> it is just >like a trained animal. The interesting thing is that the 
> negative reinforcement doesn't have to be a >punishment byour 
> standards, just an error signal.
>
> Perhaps. I personally have "Brain Hurt" with this area. I can only 
> equate it to the issue of needing to replicate the Human chemistry in 
> uploadsor all our error signalssuch as pain, remorse, jealousy will be 
> lost. To me I cant help but think a simple error signal to a machine 
> is as meaningless as showing a red card to a sportsman who doesn't 
> know what it means. It is only a symbol, the actual punishment only 
> comes from the chemistry it evokes. If we give a machine a symbol of 
> pain, that really won't cut it imho.

Suppose you followed the rule for some reason that you do actions less 
often when you see a red card as a consequence. That is equivalent to 
reinforcement learning, even if you have no sense of the meaning of the 
card. Or rather, to you the meaning would be "do that action less often".

Remorse, shame and guilt are about detecting something more: you have 
misbehaved according to some moral system you think is true. So they are 
signals that you have inconsistent behavior (in relation to your morals 
or to your community). So they hinge on 1) understanding that there are 
moral systems you ought to follow, 2) understanding that you acted 
against the system and sometimes 3) a wish to undertake action to fix 
the error. All pretty complex concepts, and usually not even properly 
conceptualised in humans - we typically run this as an emotional 
subsystem rather than as a conscious plan (this is partly why ethicists 
behave so... nonstandard... in regards to morals). I totally can imagine 
an AI doing the same, but programming all this requires some serious 
internal abilities. It needs to be able to reason about itself, its 
behavior patterns, the fact that it and behaviors are inconsistent, and 
quite likely have a theory of mind for other agents. A tall order. Which 
is of course why evolution has favored shortcut emotions that do much of 
the work.

>
> >Moral proxies can also misbehave: I tell my device to do A, but it 
> does B. This can be because I failed at >programming it properly, but 
> it can also be because I did not foresee the consequences of my 
> instructions. >Or the interaction between the instructions and the 
> environment. My responsibility is 1) due to how much >causal control I 
> have over the consequences, and 2) how much I allow consequences to 
> ensue outside my >causal control.
>
> A problem that already exists. I have wondered about the implications 
> of automatic parking available in some cars. Should you engage this 
> parking system and your car *decides* to prang the parked vehicle in 
> front, who is responsible? The car for a bad judgement, You for not 
> applying the breaks, the engineer who designed the physical 
> mechanisms, the software developer or the salesman who told you it was 
> infallible?

Exactly. If the car is just a proxy the responsibility question is about 
who made the most culpable assumptions.

> I think as such autonomous systems evolve there should and hopefully 
> will be a corresponding evolution of law brought about by liability 
> suits. Im not aware of any yet, but im 100% sure they will appear if 
> they haven't already. Perhaps the stakes are not yet high enough with 
> simple parking mishaps, but when the first self driving car ploughs 
> through a bus stop full of Nuns, the lawyers will no doubt wrestle it 
> out for us.

Liability is the big thing. While ethicists often think law is a boring 
afterthought, there is quite a lot of clever analysis in legal reasoning 
about responsibility.

But the wrong liability regime can also mess up whole fields. The lack 
of software liability means security is of far too little concern, yet 
stricter software liability would no doubt make it harder to write free 
software. Car companies are scared about giving cars too much autonomy 
due to liability, yet the lack of liability in military operations is 
leading to some dangerously autonomous systems (the main reason IMHO the 
military is not keen on fully autonomous drones is simply traditionalism 
and employment security; the CIA likely has less inhibitions). 
Pharmaceutical liability seems to be throttling drug development 
altogether.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Fri Feb 15 00:35:19 2013
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2013 16:35:19 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
Message-ID: 

On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 1:39 PM,  BillK  wrote:

snip

> Which is why I hold the opinion that civilisations which can control
> enough resources to seed the universe are also intelligent enough to
> decide not to do that. Or, alternatively, find themselves driven down
> a different path. For example, like transcension, or moving to a
> nano-scale infinite universe, or even self-destruction, any of which
> does not lead to the seeding of the universe.

Either one of them has to be 100% or some combination of them does.  A
single cause seems more likely to me, but I say that without
conviction.

What is the one thing an intelligent species would value most?  I
think intelligence itself would be the common trait.

That leads to uploading and speeding up to where the rest of the
universe recedes out of reach.

> Obviously, the universe still exists,

That's not entirely obvious.  Though I put no stock a in the idea of
this being a simulation, I can't rule it out.

Keith

From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Feb 15 10:13:15 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:13:15 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: 

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Keith Henson  wrote:
> What is the one thing an intelligent species would value most?  I
> think intelligence itself would be the common trait.
>
> That leads to uploading and speeding up to where the rest of the
> universe recedes out of reach.
>

Yes, if intelligences speed up, then that makes journey times longer
by the same factor.
A large enough speedup effectively 'freezes' the physical universe.

This implies that thinking and action will all take place in a virtual
universe created by the high speed intelligences. (As they cannot
interact with a frozen universe). If they are living in a virtual
universe, this would explain why they don't bother sending packages to
other stars.

If this intelligence speedup is the future of all intelligent life,
then there could be billions of virtual civilisations floating around
in the vastness of space.

BillK

From eugen at leitl.org  Fri Feb 15 10:33:01 2013
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 11:33:01 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 

Message-ID: <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:13:15AM +0000, BillK wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Keith Henson  wrote:
> > What is the one thing an intelligent species would value most?  I
> > think intelligence itself would be the common trait.
> >
> > That leads to uploading and speeding up to where the rest of the
> > universe recedes out of reach.

Yeah, just as we all live in one big city. Wait, we don't.
It seems that we're fine with local communication asynchrony.

> Yes, if intelligences speed up, then that makes journey times longer
> by the same factor.

Immanuel Kant almost never left K?nigsberg.

> A large enough speedup effectively 'freezes' the physical universe.

Of course.

> This implies that thinking and action will all take place in a virtual
> universe created by the high speed intelligences. (As they cannot

No, because you ignore the physical layer something will eat you.

> interact with a frozen universe). If they are living in a virtual
> universe, this would explain why they don't bother sending packages to

No, it wouldn't.

But it would explain a lot about you, particularly your inability
to learn.

> other stars.
> 
> If this intelligence speedup is the future of all intelligent life,
> then there could be billions of virtual civilisations floating around
> in the vastness of space.

And the universe would be full of very peculiar stellar-output FIR
sources. There aren't, so you're wrong.

From anders at aleph.se  Fri Feb 15 10:34:49 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:34:49 +0000
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of
 asteroid (fwd)
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se>

And at the same time, we miss the approach of a meteor that actually 
manages to do some material damage with the sonic boom:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/feb/15/meteorite-explosion-shakes-russian
http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy.html
Thanks to all the dashcams we got great footage.

Looks to me like a single bolide, probably a great deal smaller than 
2012 DA 14 but dense enough to detonate much deeper in the atmosphere. 
And as Phil Plait points out, the trajectory is very different from DA 
14, so it is likely unrelated (many asteroids are doubles).

> The emergencies ministry described Friday's events as a "meteor shower
> in the form of fireballs" and said background radiation levels were
> normal.
- which is pretty hilarious given the radioactivity in the environment 
around Chelyabinsk (Mayak/Ozersk, "The Most Contaminated
Spot on the Planet" is 80 km north).

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 15 13:54:05 2013
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 05:54:05 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: <1360936445.54511.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

----- Original Message -----
> From: Keith Henson 
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2013 4:35 PM
> Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
?
> 
> What is the one thing an intelligent species would value most?? I
> think intelligence itself would be the common trait.

Hmm. Not by my reckoning. Intelligence is largely the ability to process information. Therefore there is no benefit to being able to process more information than is available in ones environment. This might be a matter of personal taste, but I would rather be a humble?australopithecus roaming the Serengeti than Einstein locked in a sensory deprivation chamber. As many classical philosophers noted, boredom curses even the gods.
?
> That's not entirely obvious.? Though I put no stock a in the idea of
> this being a simulation, I can't rule it out.
?
Indeed. Considering how common UFO sightings are relative to purported sightings of?their extraterrestrial pilots, one has to wonder if UFOs might be more like mouse pointers controlled by the simulator(s) than any kind of actual spacecraft. Especially in light of relativity theory.
?
?
Stuart LaForge
?
"Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to heaven." - William Shakespeare

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 15 18:14:08 2013
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:14:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] NYC Debate: Bioethicists Hold Public Debate Ban on
	Genetically Engineered Babies
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: <1360952048.27059.YahooMailClassic@web165006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

James Clement 

> 
> Thought this might interest the group: *B*ioethicists Hold
> Public Debate
> Ban on Genetically Engineered Babies.
> 
> February 14, 2013
> 
...
> four intellectuals gathered on a stage in New York
> City last
> night to debate whether or not there should be a ban on the
> use of genetic
> engineering to improve human babies*.*

Wait a minute, that's not what the title says.

I thought this was about having a ban on public debates about genetically engineered babies!

What does a 'public debate ban' mean, but a ban on public debates?

I think there should be a public debate about having a ban on public debates about genetically engineered babies.

If anyone wants to debate my notion (maybe you think it should be banned, for instance), feel free.

Ben Zaiboc

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 15 18:22:02 2013
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 10:22:02 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Where are they?
In-Reply-To: 
Message-ID: <1360952522.75840.YahooMailClassic@web165002.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Keith Henson  wrote:
> 
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2013 at 1:39 PM,? BillK 

> > Obviously, the universe still exists,
> 
> That's not entirely obvious.? Though I put no stock a
> in the idea of
> this being a simulation, I can't rule it out.

Are you saying that if something is a simulation, it doesn't exist?

That doesn't bode well for uploading!

Ben Zaiboc

From spike66 at att.net  Fri Feb 15 20:15:06 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 12:15:06 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <1360936445.54511.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: 
 <1360936445.54511.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <006601ce0bb9$265f5400$731dfc00$@att.net>

>... On Behalf Of The Avantguardian

...?
?
>...Stuart LaForge
?
>..."Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly
to heaven." - William Shakespeare

_______________________________________________

Avant, this quote is so cool, thanks man!  I never knew Bill had ever made
that comment, but it works for me on so many levels.

spike

From spike66 at att.net  Fri Feb 15 23:34:54 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 15:34:54 -0800
Subject: [ExI] NYC Debate: Bioethicists Hold Public Debate Ban
	on	Genetically Engineered Babies
In-Reply-To: <1360952048.27059.YahooMailClassic@web165006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: 
 <1360952048.27059.YahooMailClassic@web165006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <00a201ce0bd5$0fad2c70$2f078550$@att.net>

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ben Zaiboc

> 
>>... Thought this might interest the group: *B*ioethicists Hold Public
Debate Ban on Genetically Engineered Babies.
> 
> February 14, 2013
> 
...
> four intellectuals gathered on a stage in New York City last night to 
> debate whether or not there should be a ban on the use of genetic 
> engineering to improve human babies*.*

>...Wait a minute, that's not what the title says.

>...I thought this was about having a ban on public debates about
genetically engineered babies!...Ben Zaiboc

_______________________________________________

Ja!  Genetically engineered babies are welcome.  But we must debate banning
the debate on genetically engineered babies.  Of course, the headline
doesn't actually specify human babies.  What isn't clear is if it is allowed
for us to debate the notion of debating the debate on the offspring of
unspecified species.

Good catch Ben.

spike

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Fri Feb 15 16:56:05 2013
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kellycoinguy)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 09:56:05 -0700
Subject: [ExI] A Vindication of the Rights of Machines
Message-ID: 

What if instead of pain, poor behavior on the part of a machine were reinforced with a loss of CPU cycles available to it?

In a society or ecology of machines this would have the desirable effect that machines with higher morals got more bandwidth.

Just a thought.

-Kelly

Sent from my Samsung Epic? 4G Touch
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From rtomek at ceti.pl  Sat Feb 16 01:59:49 2013
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 02:59:49 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of
 asteroid (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se>
References: 
 <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Fri, 15 Feb 2013, Anders Sandberg wrote:

> And at the same time, we miss the approach of a meteor that actually manages
> to do some material damage with the sonic boom:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2013/feb/15/meteorite-explosion-shakes-russian
> http://www.slate.com/blogs/bad_astronomy.html
> Thanks to all the dashcams we got great footage.
> 
> Looks to me like a single bolide, probably a great deal smaller than 2012 DA
> 14 but dense enough to detonate much deeper in the atmosphere. And as Phil
> Plait points out, the trajectory is very different from DA 14, so it is likely
> unrelated (many asteroids are doubles).
> 
> > The emergencies ministry described Friday's events as a "meteor shower
> > in the form of fireballs" and said background radiation levels were
> > normal.
> - which is pretty hilarious given the radioactivity in the environment around
> Chelyabinsk (Mayak/Ozersk, "The Most Contaminated
> Spot on the Planet" is 80 km north).

Very unnerving is the realisation that despite whole NEO search, this 
thing has caught the planet pants down (or I don't know how else to sum 
this up). And that it managed to cover quite huge area despite its really 
small size. But maybe the news regarding "coverage" are a bit exaggerated, 
let's wait and see what they say after a week.

On a plus side, no fatalities, AFAIK. Just injuries from broken windows, 
mostly.

On Russian news sites, the event is big but not huge, it seems. I'd say, 
just one news among many, even if on top of the list.

As of Mayak, I understand that after initial contamination, which after 
some time gets washed with rains and winds, a usual treatment with 
concrete plate makes things "normal" (until one day concrete erodes, but 
that day belongs to the future). Likewise, one can travel around Chernobyl 
as long as there is no wind (and one should also avoid driving after 
another vehicles, which rise dust from the road). At least that's what I 
have heard/read. Of course longer stay or a visit to a hotspot requires 
more precautions.

BTW, it's interesting (maybe) that what is called 

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

in Russian wiki gets the name "accident". So maybe it goes similarly with 
"normal". BTW, 80 km may be enough - for comparison, Chernobyl is located 
about 100 km north from Kiev, Ukraine's capital. And I guess things are 
normal in Kiev (if officials live there, I could live there as well).

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **

From msd001 at gmail.com  Fri Feb 15 21:56:10 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 16:56:10 -0500
Subject: [ExI] NYC Debate: Bioethicists Hold Public Debate Ban on
 Genetically Engineered Babies
In-Reply-To: <1360952048.27059.YahooMailClassic@web165006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: 
 <1360952048.27059.YahooMailClassic@web165006.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: 

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 1:14 PM, Ben Zaiboc  wrote:
> Wait a minute, that's not what the title says.
>
> I thought this was about having a ban on public debates about genetically engineered babies!
>
> What does a 'public debate ban' mean, but a ban on public debates?
>
> I think there should be a public debate about having a ban on public debates about genetically engineered babies.
>
> If anyone wants to debate my notion (maybe you think it should be banned, for instance), feel free.

Sorry Ben, you are mistaken:  They're using the genetically engineered
babies as the podium behind and upon which the debates take place.

I cannot endorse using babies (whether genetically engineered or not)
in this manner; I think this practice should be banned.

From anders at aleph.se  Sat Feb 16 13:50:23 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 13:50:23 +0000
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of
 asteroid (fwd)
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
 <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se> 
Message-ID: <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se>

On 16/02/2013 01:59, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> Very unnerving is the realisation that despite whole NEO search, this 
> thing has caught the planet pants down (or I don't know how else to 
> sum this up). 

Nah, this is a too small impactor to be part of spaceguard and the other 
NEO programs (their cut-off is around 140 meters). This size will 
typically be picked up by radar or observations during the final plunge, 
if they are detected at all. As I argue in my commentary
http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/02/live-from-the-shooting-gallery-what-price-impact-safety/
looking for them is not a bad idea, but it is not a major way of 
improving planetary safety.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 16 14:08:39 2013
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 06:08:39 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of
	asteroid (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se>
References: 
 <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se> 
 <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <1361023719.64264.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

----- Original Message -----
> From: Anders Sandberg 
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Cc: 
> Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 5:50 AM
> Subject: Re: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of asteroid (fwd)
> 
> On 16/02/2013 01:59, Tomasz Rola wrote:
>>  Very unnerving is the realisation that despite whole NEO search, this thing 
> has caught the planet pants down (or I don't know how else to sum this up). 
> 
> Nah, this is a too small impactor to be part of spaceguard and the other NEO 
> programs (their cut-off is around 140 meters). This size will typically be 
> picked up by radar or observations during the final plunge, if they are detected 
> at all. As I argue in my commentary
> http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/02/live-from-the-shooting-gallery-what-price-impact-safety/
> looking for them is not a bad idea, but it is not a major way of improving 
> planetary safety.

Coincidences like this make me wonder if Carl Jung might not have been on to something with his ideas of synchronicity. What do you?estimate the probability of such a meteor strike on the same day as?a close flyby by an "unrelated" NEO is Anders??If you ask me, I would say this is a shot across our bow by Death, destroyer of worlds, to quote the Bhagavad Gita via Oppenheimer.
?
?
"Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to heaven." - William Shakespeare

From spike66 at att.net  Sat Feb 16 15:18:21 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 07:18:21 -0800
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby
	of	asteroid (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <1361023719.64264.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: 
 <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se> 
 <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se>
 <1361023719.64264.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <000001ce0c58$dc343f30$949cbd90$@att.net>

>... On Behalf Of The Avantguardian
...

>...Coincidences like this make me wonder if Carl Jung might not have been
on to something with his ideas of synchronicity. What do you?estimate the
probability of such a meteor strike on the same day as?a close flyby by an
"unrelated" NEO is ...  Avantguardian

Did you ever have one of those days where several bad things happen, one
right after another?  Russia being a big country that it is, we can imagine
some hapless commie having one of those days, and saying something just
before the meteor arrived such as "Oy, vhat else could possibly go wronk?"

{8^D

spike

From rtomek at ceti.pl  Sat Feb 16 15:59:06 2013
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:59:06 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of
 asteroid (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se>
References: 
 <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se>
  <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Anders Sandberg wrote:

> On 16/02/2013 01:59, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> > Very unnerving is the realisation that despite whole NEO search, this 
> > thing has caught the planet pants down (or I don't know how else to 
> > sum this up).
> 
> Nah, this is a too small impactor to be part of spaceguard and the other 
> NEO programs (their cut-off is around 140 meters). This size will 
> typically be picked up by radar or observations during the final plunge, 
> if they are detected at all. As I argue in my commentary 
> http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/02/live-from-the-shooting-gallery-what-price-impact-safety/ 
> looking for them is not a bad idea, but it is not a major way of 
> improving planetary safety.

The same numbers can tell somewhat different stories. Yours is hard to 
disagree with, but OTOH Russian impactor had - by recent estimates - 15m 
diameter. I read about incoming NEOs in a kind of systematic manner, out 
of curiosity, and it's not unusual to have predictions about 25m objects 
coming in a month or so. The 2012DA14 is said to have 65m and I knew about 
it since few months (and it had been first observed year ago). So I guess 
it is not unthinkable to have a warning about 15m impactor coming in a 
week. Um, wait, maybe not. The thing marched 12mln km in a week (assuming 
20kmps pace). Ok, but if we set up perimeter at Moon's orbit, this gives 
about 4-5h alert time before impact. Should be enough to prepare some a-a 
rocket.

I mean, it is cool to say something like "bah, a kilometer-wide impactor 
we could bother about but mere 20m is peanuts to us, it's only umpteen 
statistical deaths per year". But I think limits should be pushed a little 
further. Especially that we should maybe bother more about small to medium 
size and faaast asteroids, coming out of nowhere. Right now we are mostly 
good to find things that float on Earth-like orbits. AFAIK, of course.

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **

From anders at aleph.se  Sat Feb 16 16:26:54 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 16:26:54 +0000
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of
 asteroid (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <1361023719.64264.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: 
 <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se> 
 <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se>
 <1361023719.64264.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <511FB34E.3010400@aleph.se>

On 16/02/2013 15:59, Tomasz Rola wrote:
> I read about incoming NEOs in a kind of systematic manner, out of 
> curiosity, and it's not unusual to have predictions about 25m objects 
> coming in a month or so. The 2012DA14 is said to have 65m and I knew 
> about it since few months (and it had been first observed year ago). 
> So I guess it is not unthinkable to have a warning about 15m impactor 
> coming in a week. 

Yes, it is not uncommon for the astronomy community to find really small 
NEOs and figure out their orbits. 2004 FU162 is just six meters, 2010 
AL30 and 2011 MD are about ten meters. But most are found during their 
close pass, not far ahead of time - the small ones we know weeks ahead 
are coming are typically those who did a past pass. So we will no doubt 
get plenty of warnings about known rocks, but that doesn't preclude 
getting even more suprise appearances. Actually scanning for all 25 m 
objects would be a tough undertaking, requiring some seriously good 
systems.

> I mean, it is cool to say something like "bah, a kilometer-wide 
> impactor we could bother about but mere 20m is peanuts to us, it's 
> only umpteen statistical deaths per year". But I think limits should 
> be pushed a little further.
Cost effectiveness matters. One billion spent on traffic safety will 
save far more lives than one billion spent on anti-terrorism measures, 
yet save far fewer lives than if it were used for anti-parasite 
therapies in sub-Saharan Africa. Pushing one of the less effective uses 
requires at least an argument for why it is morally imperative to do it, 
even if it is not better at saving lives.

On 16/02/2013 14:08, The Avantguardian wrote:
> What do you estimate the probability of such a meteor strike on the 
> same day as a close flyby by an "unrelated" NEO is Anders?

Impactors like the Russian one happens about once a century or so, so 
the daily probability is 1 in 36524. Smaller ones like the Sudanese 
happens about yearly, so there the daily probability is 1 in 365 or so.

The probability of a predicted NEO close encounter can be guessed from 
http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/ca/ - I see 80 encounters over the next 79 days, 
so one encounter per day seems plausible (and in the future this will of 
course go up). So the chance of yesterday was 1 in 36524 - unusual, but 
there are plenty of different ways coincidences can come about.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

From spike66 at att.net  Sat Feb 16 16:32:22 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 08:32:22 -0800
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of
	asteroid (fwd)
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
 <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se> 
 <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se> 
Message-ID: <000a01ce0c63$33198850$994c98f0$@att.net>

>... On Behalf Of Tomasz Rola...

>... Ok, but if we set up perimeter at Moon's orbit, this gives about 4-5h
alert time before impact. Should be enough to prepare some a-a
rocket...Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--

OK, assume it into existence.  For the sake of thought experiments, assume
any advance warning you wish, and any existing or feasible future rocket you
want.  Now what?  If you had in mind putting a nuke aboard and trying to
blast the rock into gravel, keep in mind the relative velocity.  We have no
current technology that would detonate a nuke with a tight enough precision
to do much to a meteoroid.  For instance, if we manage to get the trigger
tech to plus or minus one millisecond, that is plus or minus a couple of
kilometers.  If the nuke is more than a few meters away at detonation, the
rock would scarcely notice, and even if we manage a perfect detonation, it
isn't clear to me it would break up the meteoroid.

spike

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sat Feb 16 17:38:33 2013
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 18:38:33 +0100
Subject: [ExI] A Vindication of the Rights of Machines
In-Reply-To: <511A0D8D.60202@aleph.se>
References: <511A0D8D.60202@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On 12 February 2013 10:38, Anders Sandberg  wrote:

>  Personally I think machine rights make sense when the machine can
> understand them, something that is pretty far away (AGI complete?). Some
> machines might be moral patients (i.e. we might not be morally allowed to
> treat them badly, for some kinds of bad) much earlier - I am arguing this
> especially for early uploading experiments, but it might apply to some
> other systems.
>

Mmhhh. Having "rights" and being moral agents (or patients) are entirely
different things.

Corporation, eg, have rights, but are not moral agents per se. Slaves are
moral agents but do not have rights.

As to machines, I think we will give them "rights" as soon as it becomes a
simpler way to describe what can or cannot legally be done with them.
Irrespective of their "moral" position.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Feb 16 14:32:42 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:32:42 +0000
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of
	asteroid (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se>
References: 
 <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se>

 <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 1:50 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> Nah, this is a too small impactor to be part of spaceguard and the other NEO
> programs (their cut-off is around 140 meters). This size will typically be
> picked up by radar or observations during the final plunge, if they are
> detected at all. As I argue in my commentary
> http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/02/live-from-the-shooting-gallery-what-price-impact-safety/
> looking for them is not a bad idea, but it is not a major way of improving
> planetary safety.
>

It depends a bit on how far you extend the implications of such an event.

If it was mistaken for an ICBM from North Korea, then rockets might be
launched in retaliation, and wars started. (It might be a deliberate
mistake if a government wanted an excuse to start a war).

If it was treated as a terrorist explosion, panic reactions could be
almost anything.
Look at the huge losses inflicted on US freedom and the US economy
caused by flying a plane into a skyscraper. (Again, it might be
deliberately mistaken for policy reasons).

BillK

From anders at aleph.se  Sat Feb 16 19:57:40 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 19:57:40 +0000
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of
 asteroid (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <000a01ce0c63$33198850$994c98f0$@att.net>
References: 
 <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se> 
 <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se> 
 <000a01ce0c63$33198850$994c98f0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <511FE4B4.5050406@aleph.se>

On 16/02/2013 16:32, spike wrote:
> OK, assume it into existence.  For the sake of thought experiments, assume
> any advance warning you wish, and any existing or feasible future rocket you
> want.

Any advance warning? Now you are making things too easy, Spike! You just 
need to nudge the asteroid away from a collision keyhole, and that can 
be done with a mere kick if you have enough time. The displacement goes 
up linearly with time, except for near Earth passes where it can be 
amplified a lot. So have your rocket just hit the asteroid straight.

(Keyholes are fun. They are the pre-images of Earth along a transversal 
manifold: go through one, and your orbit will hit it next time. Besides 
the 1-orbit keyholes there are pre-images of pre-images, producing 
smaller and distorted keyholes for more remote collisions. They form a 
Cantor-set like fractal along a curve in the manifold. Aim your kick so 
that you miss the fractal - possibly making use of the infinite subset 
of repelling periodic points embedded in its border - and you are safe. )

Looking at the graph on
http://www.neoshield.net/en/mitigation-measures/overview.htm
suggests that if you only have a few days, then either you must already 
have nuclear defenses in place in space, or you need to do duck and 
cover civil defense. Figure 2.2 in 
http://isulibrary.isunet.edu/opac/doc_num.php?explnum_id=142 has more 
detail, and doesn't assume an impressive space shield (I love the option 
"continental relocation")

>    Now what?  If you had in mind putting a nuke aboard and trying to
> blast the rock into gravel, keep in mind the relative velocity.  We have no
> current technology that would detonate a nuke with a tight enough precision
> to do much to a meteoroid.  For instance, if we manage to get the trigger
> tech to plus or minus one millisecond, that is plus or minus a couple of
> kilometers.  If the nuke is more than a few meters away at detonation, the
> rock would scarcely notice, and even if we manage a perfect detonation, it
> isn't clear to me it would break up the meteoroid.
Yes, nukes in space are surprisingly wimpy. But I think you are too 
pessimistic about detonation precision: typical space velocities are on 
the order of several kilometers per second. So a millisecond error is a 
few millikilometers - a few meters. You don't want the detonation to be 
on the surface if you aim for heavy deflection: the blast causes surface 
ablation that does the actual pushing. Groundbursts apparently cause a 
jet of faster but lighter stuff, imparting less momentum.

The big problem is that nobody knows how asteroids do plastic 
deformation in the case of trying to nuclearly disrupt them: gravel 
piles can just mould themselves into a new shape. And they can easily 
just turn into a vast cloud of impactors that will now damage a large 
part of Earth instead of a small corner. Some simulations I have seen 
produced very impressive messes.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University

From rtomek at ceti.pl  Sat Feb 16 21:10:30 2013
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 22:10:30 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of
 asteroid (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <000a01ce0c63$33198850$994c98f0$@att.net>
References: 
 <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se>
  <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se>

 <000a01ce0c63$33198850$994c98f0$@att.net>
Message-ID: 

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, spike wrote:

> 
> >... On Behalf Of Tomasz Rola...
> 
> >... Ok, but if we set up perimeter at Moon's orbit, this gives about 4-5h
> alert time before impact. Should be enough to prepare some a-a
> rocket...Regards,
> Tomasz Rola
> 
> --
> 
> OK, assume it into existence.  For the sake of thought experiments, assume
> any advance warning you wish, and any existing or feasible future rocket you
> want.  Now what?  If you had in mind putting a nuke aboard and trying to
> blast the rock into gravel, keep in mind the relative velocity.  We have no
> current technology that would detonate a nuke with a tight enough precision
> to do much to a meteoroid.  For instance, if we manage to get the trigger
> tech to plus or minus one millisecond, that is plus or minus a couple of
> kilometers.  If the nuke is more than a few meters away at detonation, the
> rock would scarcely notice, and even if we manage a perfect detonation, it
> isn't clear to me it would break up the meteoroid.
> 
> spike

Spike, I did not mean using nukes. They may be handy in some situations, 
but in this case (10-100m impactors) I would like to try classic solution 
first. Ram it, blow it, slow it down. And I wouldn't object if Earth had 
some kind of "reactive armor" made of radars and missiles (to begin with 
something). AFAIK an explosion in right place and time can change quite a 
lot. Ask any modern tank.

The problem with blowing things in space is, I guess, majority of our 
know-how assumes there is some kind of medium in which explosion takes 
place. In space, no medium, so an entire branch of research is needed. Or 
at least few carefully planned experiments.

As of hit-or-miss problem, predators and NBA players somehow manage to 
solve it. Tennis player can meet the ball despite more than 3x speed 
difference. How about this: state a problem -> some research, some 
engineering -> solution! Of course it would be difficult. Just like any 
nontrivial thing done in the last few centuries. But I don't think it 
requires AI to solve this one. BTW, we as a species are still capable of 
problem solving, are we? Or are we only capable of building falsebook and 
other virtual mating spaces?

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **

From spike66 at att.net  Sat Feb 16 22:17:02 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:17:02 -0800
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of
	asteroid (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <511FE4B4.5050406@aleph.se>
References: 
 <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se> 
 <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se> 
 <000a01ce0c63$33198850$994c98f0$@att.net> <511FE4B4.5050406@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <005101ce0c93$58f91dd0$0aeb5970$@att.net>

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
Sent: Saturday, February 16, 2013 11:58 AM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: Re: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of
asteroid (fwd)

On 16/02/2013 16:32, spike wrote:
>> ...OK, assume it into existence.  For the sake of thought experiments, 
> assume any advance warning you wish, and any existing or feasible 
> future rocket you want.

>...Any advance warning? Now you are making things too easy, Spike!...

Hmmm, I would cheerfully have it so, sir.  Read on please.

>...You just need to nudge the asteroid away from a collision keyhole, and
that can be done with a mere kick if you have enough time...

I agree you need only a small delta v.  The challenge is in getting even
that.  But don't give up:

>...The displacement goes up linearly with time, except for near Earth
passes where it can be amplified a lot...

Agreed, however...

>...So have your rocket just hit the asteroid straight...

Consider the path an incoming asteroid and the path of any earth-based
interceptor that is at any realistic distance from earth.  The impact you
really need is side-on, but the one available to us is almost straight
head-on collision.  If you can hit it far enough out there, I agree you can
get some side momentum, but any scenario I have been able to derive provides
very little momentum perpendicular to the path of travel, single-digit
percent.

(Keyholes are fun. They are the pre-images of Earth along a transversal
manifold: go through one, and your orbit will hit it next time. Besides the
1-orbit keyholes there are pre-images of pre-images, producing smaller and
distorted keyholes for more remote collisions. They form a Cantor-set like
fractal along a curve in the manifold. Aim your kick so that you miss the
fractal - possibly making use of the infinite subset of repelling periodic
points embedded in its border - and you are safe. )

Looking at the graph on
http://www.neoshield.net/en/mitigation-measures/overview.htm
suggests that if you only have a few days, then either you must already have
nuclear defenses in place in space, or you need to do duck and cover civil
defense. Figure 2.2 in
http://isulibrary.isunet.edu/opac/doc_num.php?explnum_id=142 has more
detail, and doesn't assume an impressive space shield (I love the option
"continental relocation")

>>    ...  If the nuke is more than a 
> few meters away at detonation, the rock would scarcely notice, and 
> even if we manage a perfect detonation, it isn't clear to me it would
break up the meteoroid.

>...Yes, nukes in space are surprisingly wimpy. But I think you are too
pessimistic about detonation precision: typical space velocities are on the
order of several kilometers per second. So a millisecond error is a few
millikilometers - a few meters...

Doh!  Ja you are right.  I am remembering now where my intuition came from
on that.  Robert Bradbury and I were really pondering this about a dozen
years ago, back in the timeframe when you were out here for I think Extro4.
I need to consult my green notebooks to find when we were doing that.  We
did figure out that uncertainty of a few meters, but I wasn't sure that
would be good enough, since it isn't entirely clear to me how you would
detect when you are getting close to the target.  Any ideas on that?  Would
radar return be good enough?

Here's where I left it back when Robert and I did our brainstorming sesh: I
had a scheme whereby the device is detonated on impact by orienting a
trigger rod oriented forward which attempts to det the nuke upon physical
impact with the rock.  It isn't entirely clear this would work, but it would
be based on the notion of having a rod with an electric signal cable going
out to the end of the rod.  The device is armed by extending the rod when
impact is a few thousand milliseconds away, then as soon as the forward end
of the rod impacts the rock, the circuit's conductive properties suddenly
change (not necessarily open, since the impact site is a plasma region,
which is highly conductive.)  The change triggers the high explosive, which
triggers the plutonium core which triggers the tritium, which *might*
deflect the asteroid in a remarkably uncertain way. 

I can imagine a telescoping on-orbit deployed forward rod.  I don't know the
details, but I think that process from trigger to tritium ignition can all
occur inside a millisecond, so a 20 meter rod should be sufficient, and we
can do a 20 meter rod without too much trouble.  So now the real challenge
is in getting close enough so that there is no transverse corrections needed
in the last few thousand milliseconds, after the rod is deployed forward.

>... You don't want the detonation to be on the surface if you aim for heavy
deflection: the blast causes surface ablation that does the actual pushing.
Groundbursts apparently cause a jet of faster but lighter stuff, imparting
less momentum...

Ja, we are looking at a burst perhaps 10 meters from the surface.  There are
variations on the theme as well.  We could perhaps fire a projectile from
the device toward the rock (or even several projectiles) with a Don't
Explode signal radiating from it.  As soon as those signals stop, we know
the projectile has hit the rock.  We can calculate (very quickly) how long
it has been since the projectile was fired, and figure out how far the
device is from the rock.  This might give single-digit millisecond warning
of impact, which would allow detonation a few tens of meters away.

>...The big problem is that nobody knows how asteroids do plastic
deformation in the case of trying to nuclearly disrupt them: gravel piles
can just mould themselves into a new shape. And they can easily just turn
into a vast cloud of impactors that will now damage a large part of Earth
instead of a small corner. Some simulations I have seen produced very
impressive messes. -- Anders Sandberg,

Ja perhaps, but my intuition tells me a pile of rocks scattered far is
better than a single rock in every case regardless.  I could be wrong on
that, considering that most of the planet is wilderness and ocean.  The
chances of an asteroid hitting anything important is very low, but that bit
about the injury of a kilo-commie from broken windows from a sonic boom is
intriguing.  Consider that if this is a typical century-event, only in the
last couple centuries did humanity see anything like that; in all previous
history of mankind, a sonic boom would likely have been harmless to the
proles.

spike

From spike66 at att.net  Sat Feb 16 22:33:27 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 14:33:27 -0800
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of
	asteroid (fwd)
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
 <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se> 
 <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se> 
 <000a01ce0c63$33198850$994c98f0$@att.net>

Message-ID: <005201ce0c95$a4903e20$edb0ba60$@att.net>

>... On Behalf Of Tomasz Rola
...

>...Spike, I did not mean using nukes. They may be handy in some situations,
but in this case (10-100m impactors) I would like to try classic solution
first. Ram it, blow it, slow it down. And I wouldn't object if Earth had
some kind of "reactive armor" made of radars and missiles (to begin with
something). AFAIK an explosion in right place and time can change quite a
lot. Ask any modern tank... Regards,
Tomasz Rola

Tomasz ja, but be careful not to carry over analogies that don't work very
well.  The tank is way down here at the bottom of a sea of air, where the
shock waves from any explosion do most of the heavy lifting of wrecking
stuff and transferring momentum.  In the vacuum of space a nuke doesn't do
much.

Regarding your notion of a physical impact, this might transfer some
momentum, and here's how you estimate how much: find the speed of sound in
the rock, take the closing speed and calculate a cone going aft from impact
site outward along the path of the impact.  Then calculate a cone with the
longitudinal axis being the closing velocity and both transverse axes being
the speed of sound in the rock.  So if you have a closing speed of about 10
km/sec and you estimate the speed of sound in the rock at about a km/sec,
the half-angle of the cone is about 6 degrees.  So now the total momentum
transfer to the rock is calculated by estimating the surface area of that
cone, multiplying by the sheer strength of the rocky material.  That would
give you an area times a force per unit area, from which you estimate a
force.  You know the time span during which the force is being applied, so
we might be able to estimate the momentum transfer with that.  You end up
with a conic shaped hole in the rock, the size and shape of the impactor on
the impact side, an opening at perhaps 6 degrees going aft.  The rest of the
rock scarcely notice that anything has happened.  

spike

From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Feb 16 23:29:10 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 23:29:10 +0000
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of
	asteroid (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <005201ce0c95$a4903e20$edb0ba60$@att.net>
References: 
 <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se>

 <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se>

 <000a01ce0c63$33198850$994c98f0$@att.net>

 <005201ce0c95$a4903e20$edb0ba60$@att.net>
Message-ID: 

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 10:33 PM, spike wrote:
> Regarding your notion of a physical impact, this might transfer some
> momentum, and here's how you estimate how much: find the speed of sound in
> the rock, take the closing speed and calculate a cone going aft from impact
> site outward along the path of the impact.  Then calculate a cone with the
> longitudinal axis being the closing velocity and both transverse axes being
> the speed of sound in the rock.  So if you have a closing speed of about 10
> km/sec and you estimate the speed of sound in the rock at about a km/sec,
> the half-angle of the cone is about 6 degrees.  So now the total momentum
> transfer to the rock is calculated by estimating the surface area of that
> cone, multiplying by the sheer strength of the rocky material.  That would
> give you an area times a force per unit area, from which you estimate a
> force.  You know the time span during which the force is being applied, so
> we might be able to estimate the momentum transfer with that.  You end up
> with a conic shaped hole in the rock, the size and shape of the impactor on
> the impact side, an opening at perhaps 6 degrees going aft.  The rest of the
> rock scarcely notice that anything has happened.
>
>

Although DA14 missed earth by about 17,000 miles, in keyhole terms it
missed by just 14 minutes. So just a small speedup or slowdown is
sufficient to make an asteroid miss earth.

Apparently Los Alamos has had a super computer running simulations of
nuking an asteroid and they think it will probably work OK, if no
earlier intervention is possible.

They came up with ten possible fixes:

Nuke It!
Hit It
Paint It
Strap Solar Sails to It
Net It
Point Mirrors at It
Strap a Rocket to It
Tow It with Gravity
Have Robots Munch on It
Brace for Impact!

But earth could do with having more powerful space tech available, to
make these solutions more viable.

BillK

From msd001 at gmail.com  Sun Feb 17 01:08:13 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 20:08:13 -0500
Subject: [ExI] 3d printing a Curta
Message-ID: 

Given a decent "spec" like this (or better if necessary)
http://www.vcalc.net/cu.htm

How difficult would it be to print one of these amazing devices, even
with some assembly required?

Also given prices like these:
http://home.comcast.net/~timewise1/curta/curtasforsale.html

I'm not saying to make replica or knockoffs...  but at those prices I
may never afford to "play" with this mechanical marvel.  I think this
would be a fun toy project.  Of course at the moment I'd still need
considerable cash to purchase the 3d printer, but from what I
understand they're coming to shops in towns near you soon.  (much like
a Kinko's or a Staples, etc. you would submit your 3d print job to a
queue and pick up when complete.)

Are there any legal / IP restrictions from doing something like this?

What other nerd toys would you 3d print just for kicks?

I'd probably print a bunch of Lego blocks that never existed that I
always wished for.  :)

From rtomek at ceti.pl  Sun Feb 17 03:00:04 2013
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 04:00:04 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of
 asteroid (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <005201ce0c95$a4903e20$edb0ba60$@att.net>
References: 
 <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se>
  <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se>

 <000a01ce0c63$33198850$994c98f0$@att.net>

 <005201ce0c95$a4903e20$edb0ba60$@att.net>
Message-ID: 

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, spike wrote:

> Regarding your notion of a physical impact, this might transfer some
> momentum, and here's how you estimate how much: find the speed of sound in
> the rock, take the closing speed and calculate a cone going aft from impact
> site outward along the path of the impact.  Then calculate a cone with the
> longitudinal axis being the closing velocity and both transverse axes being
[...]

Spike, thanks for hints. However... well, I don't know... I mean you sound 
like honest and good man, but why on earth would you like me to do such 
horrible things?

But ok, I will do like you say, only later, ok?

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **

From spike66 at att.net  Sun Feb 17 03:10:40 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 19:10:40 -0800
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of
	asteroid (fwd)
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
 <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se> 
 <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se> 
 <000a01ce0c63$33198850$994c98f0$@att.net>

 <005201ce0c95$a4903e20$edb0ba60$@att.net>

Message-ID: <001401ce0cbc$5e85e020$1b91a060$@att.net>

On Behalf Of Tomasz Rola

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, spike wrote:

>>... Regarding your notion of a physical impact, this might transfer some 
> momentum, and here's how you estimate how much: find the speed of 
> sound in the rock, take the closing speed and calculate a cone going 
> aft from impact site outward along the path of the impact.  Then 
> calculate a cone with the longitudinal axis being the closing velocity 
> and both transverse axes being
[...]

>...Spike, thanks for hints. However... well, I don't know... I mean you
sound like honest and good man, but why on earth would you like me to do
such horrible things?

>...But ok, I will do like you say, only later, ok?

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--

{8^D

OK, I didn't state it very clearly.  Let me try it Damien Broderick style.

You have perhaps seen what happens when a BB is fired at a glass window.  It
often creates a cone-shaped punch-out, with the impact side hole the size of
the BB and increasing in radius along the path of the BB.  When an impactor
hits a meteoroid at sufficient velocity, we can expect a hole the size of
the impactor on the impact side, increasing in radius as we go back, with a
cone half angle of about 4 to 8 degrees.

With that information, we might be able to estimate the momentum transfer to
the meteoroid, which I fear might be disappointingly small.  At those speeds
I doubt it would break up the rock, but rather would punch a clean
cone-shaped hole.  Of course our intuitions fail for we have little or no
experience in real life with impacts at 20 km/sec.

I would like to see a good simulation of it however.

spike

From deimtee at optusnet.com.au  Sun Feb 17 03:45:20 2013
From: deimtee at optusnet.com.au (david)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 14:45:20 +1100
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of
 asteroid (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <001401ce0cbc$5e85e020$1b91a060$@att.net>
References: 
 <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se>

 <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se>

 <000a01ce0c63$33198850$994c98f0$@att.net>

 <005201ce0c95$a4903e20$edb0ba60$@att.net>

 <001401ce0cbc$5e85e020$1b91a060$@att.net>
Message-ID: <20130217144520.38defe25@jarrah>

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 19:10:40 -0800
"spike"  wrote:

> {8^D
> 
> OK, I didn't state it very clearly.  Let me try it Damien Broderick
> style.
> 
> You have perhaps seen what happens when a BB is fired at a glass
> window.  It often creates a cone-shaped punch-out, with the impact
> side hole the size of the BB and increasing in radius along the path
> of the BB.  When an impactor hits a meteoroid at sufficient velocity,
> we can expect a hole the size of the impactor on the impact side,
> increasing in radius as we go back, with a cone half angle of about 4
> to 8 degrees.
> 
> With that information, we might be able to estimate the momentum
> transfer to the meteoroid, which I fear might be disappointingly
> small.  At those speeds I doubt it would break up the rock, but
> rather would punch a clean cone-shaped hole.  Of course our
> intuitions fail for we have little or no experience in real life with
> impacts at 20 km/sec.
> 
> I would like to see a good simulation of it however.
> 
> spike
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

If you are changing the orbit, and the asteroid is rotating,
impacting off centre might work better.  If you remove a chunk that is
in motion relative to the centre of gravity, then the orbit will change
by the difference in velocity between the old and new centres of
gravity. 

Hmm. thinking about it, if you hit the retreating side any momentum
transfer that did occur would probably be opposed by the change due to
this effect. Something else to consider before you shoot a rotating
asteroid, you want to hit the side that is rotating towards you for
maximum delta V.

-David.

From spike66 at att.net  Sun Feb 17 03:59:04 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 16 Feb 2013 19:59:04 -0800
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of
	asteroid (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <20130217144520.38defe25@jarrah>
References: 
 <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se> 
 <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se> 
 <000a01ce0c63$33198850$994c98f0$@att.net>

 <005201ce0c95$a4903e20$edb0ba60$@att.net>

 <001401ce0cbc$5e85e020$1b91a060$@att.net> <20130217144520.38defe25@jarrah>
Message-ID: <000301ce0cc3$2153f730$63fbe590$@att.net>

On Behalf Of david

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013 19:10:40 -0800
"spike"  wrote:

>> ...  Of course our intuitions fail 
> for we have little or no experience in real life with impacts at 20 
> km/sec... I would like to see a good simulation of it however.
> 
> spike
> 
> _______________________________________________

>...Hmm. thinking about it, if you hit the retreating side any momentum
transfer that did occur would probably be opposed by the change due to this
effect. Something else to consider before you shoot a rotating asteroid, you
want to hit the side that is rotating towards you for maximum delta V.
--David.
_______________________________________________

Before you go too far with it, think hard about that closing velocity, what
happens when you have impacts at 20 km/sec.  Intuition steers us wrong.  The
little bit of rotation goes away in the equations, negligible in comparison
to that enormous weird-zone of impacts at that speed.  I am reviewing what I
think I know about hydrodynamic impact regime, and I must retract my earlier
comment about punching a cone-shaped hole.  I need a good sim.

spike

From anders at aleph.se  Sun Feb 17 12:12:31 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 12:12:31 +0000
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of
 asteroid (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <001401ce0cbc$5e85e020$1b91a060$@att.net>
References: 
 <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se> 
 <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se> 
 <000a01ce0c63$33198850$994c98f0$@att.net>

 <005201ce0c95$a4903e20$edb0ba60$@att.net>

 <001401ce0cbc$5e85e020$1b91a060$@att.net>
Message-ID: <5120C92F.8020503@aleph.se>

On 17/02/2013 03:10, spike wrote:
> With that information, we might be able to estimate the momentum 
> transfer to the meteoroid, which I fear might be disappointingly 
> small. At those speeds I doubt it would break up the rock, but rather 
> would punch a clean cone-shaped hole. Of course our intuitions fail 
> for we have little or no experience in real life with impacts at 20 
> km/sec. I would like to see a good simulation of it however.

There was a fair amount of that at the planetary defence conference I 
attended two years back. Not so much fluid dynamics as granular media.  
If I understood the conclusions right, rubble piles are pretty good at 
absorbing impacts - punching straight through requires a fairly thin 
asteroid. But everything depends in horrendously complex ways on exactly 
how the rubble is organized, and this is simply not know. I think this 
was recognized as *the* important unknown at the conference.

A bigger problem is actually getting whatever your payload is to the 
NEO. If you detect it when it is within the Moon's orbit, typical 
spacecraft take days  to go that kind of distance. NEOs can have huge 
delta-v excesses compared to what we normally launch. So a good 
near/instant shield system better have some very fast response units 
spread out in the volume.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University

From eugen at leitl.org  Sun Feb 17 12:52:38 2013
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 13:52:38 +0100
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby
	of	asteroid (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <005201ce0c95$a4903e20$edb0ba60$@att.net>
References: 
 <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se> 
 <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se> 
 <000a01ce0c63$33198850$994c98f0$@att.net>

 <005201ce0c95$a4903e20$edb0ba60$@att.net>
Message-ID: <20130217125238.GS6172@leitl.org>

On Sat, Feb 16, 2013 at 02:33:27PM -0800, spike wrote:

> Tomasz ja, but be careful not to carry over analogies that don't work very
> well.  The tank is way down here at the bottom of a sea of air, where the
> shock waves from any explosion do most of the heavy lifting of wrecking
> stuff and transferring momentum.  In the vacuum of space a nuke doesn't do
> much.

Asymmetric ablation of surface regolith provides a lot of push, 
especially if you detonate quite a few such devices (a nuke
is very cheap).

The ablation event is sufficiently soft so that even a rubble
pile will have received some impact momentum. Another advantage:
the reaction mass is all sourced in situ.

From rtomek at ceti.pl  Sun Feb 17 17:43:26 2013
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:43:26 +0100 (CET)
Subject: [ExI] 3d printing a Curta
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: 

On Sat, 16 Feb 2013, Mike Dougherty wrote:

> Given a decent "spec" like this (or better if necessary)
> http://www.vcalc.net/cu.htm
> 
> How difficult would it be to print one of these amazing devices, even
> with some assembly required?

>From wiki, they say some curious owners tried to disassemble their curtas, 
this was fairly easy, but the other way required specific knowledge:

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curta_calculator#Cost ]

"The Curta Type I was sold for $125 in the later years of production; the 
Type II was sold for $175. While only 3% of Curtas were returned to the 
factory because of repairs under warranty,[2] a small, but significant 
number of buyers returned the Curta in pieces. Many purchasers attempted 
to disassemble the Curta. Reassembling the machine was more difficult as 
assembly required intimate knowledge of the orientation and installation 
order for each part and sub-assembly, plus special guides designed to hold 
the pieces in place during assembly. Many identical looking parts, each 
with slightly different dimensions, required test fitting and selection as 
well as special tools to adjust tolerances."

And I suspect you'd need the actual factory blueprints. It was a 
mechanical marvel in times when lots of people would like to have one. Yet 
nobody cloned the thing, repeated design process, nada, null. Maybe it was 
too difficult to replicate outside Curta's head. I mean, there were plenty 
of mechanical calculators, only they required a desk.

However, my closest relation with curta is 1. reading on the net 2. 
spotting one in the hands of half-mad physicist in "Lost". And I must 
admit it, I'm not a biggest fan of purely mechanical comps - too much 
trouble with tolerances. I guess curtas have to be clean to deliver, so in 
the field there may be a problem.

[...]
> Are there any legal / IP restrictions from doing something like this?

Don't know, but the design had been patented.

> What other nerd toys would you 3d print just for kicks?

Eh. I am so trivial. I'd try to make some kind of electromechanical 
computer, something that would be easy on tolerances because it'd use 
switches and the like. Wait, core memory would be cool to have, too.

I wouldn't do Turing machine, because it is so awesomely useless in 
practical applications :-).

But I am long time fancying myself with idea of mechanical lambda 
calculator - if only I knew how to do this _and_ posessed 3d printer, 
yep, could be very cool. Especially playing with recursion on it, heh. 
Lambda goo.

Also, there was whole class of analog computers, using water and parts to 
enable users playing with models described by complicated differential 
equations, like MONIAC, differential analyser and others:

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MONIAC_Computer ]

[ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_analyser ]

Of course there were also analog computers using electric current but I 
guess those would be hard to print.

Some slide rules were cool:

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

And last but not least, abacus:

[ http://history-computer.com/CalculatingTools/abacus.html ]

I still have my old "Russian abacus", as they call it on the page. But my 
variant has only 10-beads rods in it, so maybe it's not Russian. Perhaps 
it is Polish abacus :-).

Regards,
Tomasz Rola

--
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com             **

From spike66 at att.net  Sun Feb 17 18:01:07 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 10:01:07 -0800
Subject: [ExI] (NASA.gov) NASA to chronicle close Earth flyby of
	asteroid (fwd)
In-Reply-To: <5120C92F.8020503@aleph.se>
References: 
 <511E0F49.4090503@aleph.se> 
 <511F8E9F.4000400@aleph.se> 
 <000a01ce0c63$33198850$994c98f0$@att.net>

 <005201ce0c95$a4903e20$edb0ba60$@att.net>

 <001401ce0cbc$5e85e020$1b91a060$@att.net> <5120C92F.8020503@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <009d01ce0d38$c31c1410$49543c30$@att.net>

>... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg

On 17/02/2013 03:10, spike wrote:
>> ... At those speeds I doubt it would break up the rock, but rather 
> would punch a clean cone-shaped hole...

>...There was a fair amount of that at the planetary defence conference I
attended two years back. Not so much fluid dynamics as granular media.  
If I understood the conclusions right, rubble piles are pretty good at
absorbing impacts - punching straight through requires a fairly thin
asteroid...

Ja that's what I realized when I started thinking about this again.  I was
visualizing a 10 ton class asteroid like the one that nuked the commies
Wednesday, so a rock perhaps a meter or two thick.  In retrospect I don't
think that conic-hole notion is correct at all, even if the momentum as an
escape path out the back.  I don't know what this high speed impact would
do.

>... But everything depends in horrendously complex ways on exactly how the
rubble is organized, and this is simply not know. I think this was
recognized as *the* important unknown at the conference...

Ja, I cheerfully and abashedly retract my previous speculations.  {8^D

>...A bigger problem is actually getting whatever your payload is to the
NEO. If you detect it when it is within the Moon's orbit, typical spacecraft
take days  to go that kind of distance. NEOs can have huge delta-v excesses
compared to what we normally launch. So a good near/instant shield system
better have some very fast response units spread out in the volume. --
Anders Sandberg,
_______________________________________________

In evolution we have a notion known as preadaptation, an example being
feathers evolving for thermal control and attracting chicks, but turn out to
be great for flying.  We have pre-adapted anti-nuclear missile technology,
but it might be usable for breaking up incoming 10-ton class meteors.  THAAD
missiles and PAC3 missiles might be adaptable for end-game interception of
meteors, and they would already be stationed around population centers,
ready to fire on short notice.  

Reasoning: a previous post speculated that breaking up a meteor may be worse
than having it reenter as one piece, but this I refute.   Do consider that
the probability of a meteorite landing in a populated area is very small.
What injured all those commies was actually the sonic boom shattering glass
windows, and I can imagine it became very uncomfortable in those homes and
offices with the -10 degree temperatures which Russia provides in abundance
in February.  If we break up the rock into a thousand pieces even if just
before reentry, each fragment has its own ballistic coefficient.  The sonic
boom characteristics would be greatly mitigated.  This doesn't even require
a high-powered digital sim to verify: a sonic boom is a function of the
mass, cross sectional area and speed of the object.    

One big rock makes one huge shock wave, as we saw.  When fighter jet passes
by at supersonic speeds you know what happens.  When a bullet passes by at
the same speed, nothing happens.  A re-entering rubble pile makes a bunch of
smaller shock waves, some of which may interfere destructively with each
other, which might keep the hapless proles' windows intact and the Russian
winter outdoors where it belongs.

spike

From spike66 at att.net  Mon Feb 18 02:09:20 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 18:09:20 -0800
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
Message-ID: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net>

During the current US debate on new gun laws, a question occurred to me.
Suppose we manage to pass a law which would prohibit those deemed mentally
unstable from having a firearm.  If a crazy person was caught with a
firearm, couldn't she just plead insanity?  If that didn't work and the
judge declared her sane, couldn't she then plead innocent of owning a gun
while insane?

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From anders at aleph.se  Mon Feb 18 10:48:32 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 10:48:32 +0000
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <51220700.802@aleph.se>

On 18/02/2013 02:09, spike wrote:
>
> During the current US debate on new gun laws, a question occurred to 
> me.  Suppose we manage to pass a law which would prohibit those deemed 
> mentally unstable from having a firearm.  If a crazy person was caught 
> with a firearm, couldn't she just plead insanity?  If that didn't work 
> and the judge declared her sane, couldn't she then plead innocent of 
> owning a gun while insane?
>

Legal insanity is an interesting concept. It is not the same thing as 
being insane in a medical or everyday sense, but that a person's mind 
is/was not working in such a way that they could understand that what 
they were doing was wrong. See
http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/18951395853/excuse-defenses-part-11-excuse-me
(about halfway down) for a nice explanation. Including of why insanity 
rarely works as an excuse. Conversely, it is totally possible to be too 
unstable own a gun (say having severe personality disorders) and yet be 
legally sane.

Hmm, being in ethics makes you doubt most commonsense definitions of 
right and wrong, should it be regarded as a form of legal insanity? No: 
ethicists criticise *moral* right and wrong in strange ways, but they 
have little to say about legal right and wrong. That is another faculty.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From spike66 at att.net  Mon Feb 18 14:22:09 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 06:22:09 -0800
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <51220700.802@aleph.se>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <004d01ce0de3$56d1f260$0475d720$@att.net>

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
Sent: Monday, February 18, 2013 2:49 AM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: Re: [ExI] insanity plea

On 18/02/2013 02:09, spike wrote:

During the current US debate on new gun laws, a question occurred to me.
Suppose we manage to pass a law which would prohibit those deemed mentally
unstable from having a firearm.  If a crazy person was caught with a
firearm, couldn't she just plead insanity?  If that didn't work and the
judge declared her sane, couldn't she then plead innocent of owning a gun
while insane?

>.Hmm, being in ethics makes you doubt most commonsense definitions of right
and wrong, should it be regarded as a form of legal insanity? No: ethicists
criticise *moral* right and wrong in strange ways, but they have little to
say about legal right and wrong. That is another faculty.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,

If I am caught with a firearm while insane, I will plead not guilty by
reason of sanity.

spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From fortean1 at mindspring.com  Mon Feb 18 05:50:41 2013
From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 00:50:41 -0500 (EST)
Subject: [ExI] Anomaly Register - Radio and Radar Anomalies
Message-ID: <7035976.1361166641555.JavaMail.root@elwamui-cypress.atl.sa.earthlink.net>

Anomaly Register - Radio and Radar Anomalies
Fri Feb 15, 2013 6:10 am (PST) .

Posted by:
"Terry W. Colvin" terry_colvin2001

I have two pages from the now-defunct Anomaly Register newsletter.
It was published by William R. Corliss, retired U.S. Navy scientist,
who passed away the summer of 2011.

There are 21 items on these two pages. I have these in either
.jpg or .png format. The .jpg files are 1,321 and 1,020 kilobytes
The .png files are 154 and 158 kilobytes.

The USAF RSV does not allow attachments.

If anyone wants these please e-mail me privately at
< fortean1 at mindspring.com >.

Terry

Terry W. Colvin
Ladphrao (Bangkok), Thailand
Pran Buri (Hua Hin), Thailand
http://terrycolvin.freewebsites.com/
[Terry's Fortean & "Work" itty-bitty site]

From spike66 at att.net  Mon Feb 18 14:48:29 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 06:48:29 -0800
Subject: [ExI] ted talk without words
Message-ID: <005201ce0de7$04550410$0cff0c30$@att.net>

This is an example of a TED talk in which the photographer need not utter a
single word, and would get a standing O.  He would sure get one from me.
This is some of the most astonishing photography I have ever seen:

http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/xHkq1edcbk4?rel=0

Excellent, me lad!

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon Feb 18 17:23:01 2013
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 12:23:01 -0500
Subject: [ExI] ted talk without words
In-Reply-To: <005201ce0de7$04550410$0cff0c30$@att.net>
References: <005201ce0de7$04550410$0cff0c30$@att.net>
Message-ID: 

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013  spike  wrote:
**
>
> This is an example of a TED talk in which the photographer need not utter
> a single word, and would get a standing O. He would sure get one from me.
> This is some of the most astonishing photography I have ever seen:
>
http://www.youtube-nocookie.com/embed/xHkq1edcbk4?rel=0****
>
>
>
Excellent, me lad!
>

Beautiful stuff Spike, but speaking of TED talks try this one:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tom6_ceTu9s&playnext=1&list=PL4NL9i-Fu15hhYGB-d0hmSWD1fcIvLvn1&feature=results_video

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From msd001 at gmail.com  Mon Feb 18 23:17:32 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 18:17:32 -0500
Subject: [ExI] monkey business
Message-ID: 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/14/baboon-infidelity-study-gelada_n_2687894.html

I couldn't help thinking of spike's term for this very thing:  sneaky fuckers.

From msd001 at gmail.com  Mon Feb 18 22:54:18 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2013 17:54:18 -0500
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <51220700.802@aleph.se>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Mon, Feb 18, 2013 at 5:48 AM, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
> Hmm, being in ethics makes you doubt most commonsense definitions of right
> and wrong, should it be regarded as a form of legal insanity? No: ethicists
> criticise *moral* right and wrong in strange ways, but they have little to
> say about legal right and wrong. That is another faculty.

Are you using "faculty" here as in definition 1 or definition 3?  :)

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/faculty

... & is your quote (above) what a meta-ethicist would say?

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Feb 19 10:49:16 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:49:16 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>
References: 

 <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>
Message-ID: 

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:33 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:13:15AM +0000, BillK wrote:
>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 12:35 AM, Keith Henson  wrote:
>> > That leads to uploading and speeding up to where the rest of the
>> > universe recedes out of reach.
>
> Yeah, just as we all live in one big city. Wait, we don't.
> It seems that we're fine with local communication asynchrony.

Communication with home is not the point. Travel to the nearest star
would take thousands of years subjective time. Very boring. Yes, the
whole civilisation could decide to move and take their internal
communication system along with them. Indeed, moving to deep space
could be a safety consideration for advanced civilisations (assuming
they still have an energy source there).

>> A large enough speedup effectively 'freezes' the physical universe.
>
> Of course.
>
>> This implies that thinking and action will all take place in a virtual
>> universe created by the high speed intelligences. (As they cannot
>
> No, because you ignore the physical layer something will eat you.

Advanced intelligences are pretty good at fixing threats, especially
very slow threats. Automatic systems could deal with most of them.

>>
>> If this intelligence speedup is the future of all intelligent life,
>> then there could be billions of virtual civilisations floating around
>> in the vastness of space.
>
> And the universe would be full of very peculiar stellar-output FIR
> sources. There aren't, so you're wrong.
>

Well, we are faced with a lack of evidence of *any* intelligent
civilisations out there. To the ends of the universe everything looks
natural. The evidence says that we are alone. Or all intelligence
remains at a low level with undetectable effects.

However, we don't know the form an advanced civilisation would take or
what source of energy it would use. We can only see normal matter,
about 17%. Dark matter makes up 83%, and it is heavy, because we can
detect the gravitational effects. Then there is dark energy as well.
It seems presumptuous to claim that an advanced civilisation would be
unable to make use of either.

Taking the enormous size and age of the universe into account, it
seems to indicate that (if they exist!) -

1) we are unable to detect advanced civilisations, and
2) they have no interest in large scale manipulation of the natural universe.

But your guess is as good as mine, or any of the many other people
constructing theories.
Every theory has to be based on absolutely no evidence that we can detect.

BillK

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Feb 19 15:04:39 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 07:04:39 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 

 <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>

Message-ID: <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net>

>... On Behalf Of BillK
>...

>...Well, we are faced with a lack of evidence of *any* intelligent
civilisations out there. To the ends of the universe everything looks
natural. The evidence says that we are alone. Or all intelligence remains at
a low level with undetectable effects... BillK

Ja, or intelligence remains at a high level with undetectable effects.
Agreed it seems even if technology passes through a detectable phase only
briefly, if intelligence is common we should have seen something somewhere
by now.

I am toying with the possibility that intelligence does self-limit, for
reasons we don't yet understand.  If we have 100 billion people, would we
eventually decide that's enough?  Is there any reason to think we would be
better off with fewer, smarter brains than just in creating more and more
like the current ones?

In any case I have as a background on my computer one of NASA's deep space
images, specifically this one: 

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.californiaindianeducation.org
/science_lab/pics/space_photos/Space_Deep.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.californi
aindianeducation.org/science_lab/deep_space.html&h=1280&w=1280&sz=313&tbnid=
Ey0x065UfCHxiM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=97&zoom=1&usg=__RYOYXM71Q9zFv5qmKAmnoOuJJh0=&do
cid=aMxpONmDhV5cKM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=85MjUc_FEobtiQKbgIEI&ved=0CDIQ9QEwAA&dur=90
5

Every time I close all my windows I am struck with this picture of one tiny
patch of sky containing at least several hundred galaxies, each with
billions of stars.  I just can't get my head around the notion that
intelligence came together only once with all that out there.  There must be
something fundamental we are missing or still haven't discovered.

spike

From anders at aleph.se  Tue Feb 19 15:55:53 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:55:53 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net>
References: 

 <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>

 <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <5123A089.8030604@aleph.se>

On 19/02/2013 15:04, spike wrote:
> I am toying with the possibility that intelligence does self-limit, 
> for reasons we don't yet understand. If we have 100 billion people, 
> would we eventually decide that's enough? Is there any reason to think 
> we would be better off with fewer, smarter brains than just in 
> creating more and more like the current ones?

Suppose the Meaning of Life is maximizing pleasure. Then you should make 
as much pleasure-experiencing stuff as possible, and turn the universe 
into a pleasure maximizing system. Conversely, if the Meaning of Life is 
thinking truly deep and vast thoughts. Then you should colonize a few 
superclusters and move them together, converting it all into long-term 
computronium. If it is reciting all 9 billion names of God you just 
build the right supercomputer and turn off your civilization when it is 
done.

These are just random possible Meaning of Lifes. It might be that there 
is none, or that different species (or individuals!) have different 
ones. But advanced civilizations will - if MoLs can be figured out - 
have figured them out, and knowing them they will act to achieve them 
very powerfully. So if the reason for the Fermi paradox is related to 
this, the silence in the sky actually gives us a hint what the Meaning 
of Life is.

> In any case I have as a background on my computer one of NASA's deep 
> space images

It is a magnificient picture.

I should be preparing tonights talk rather than emailing, but thanks 
Spike for setting me back on track - my talk *is* about the Fermi 
Question, and your picture is the third slide.The first is Copernicus - 
happy 450th birthday! I then show a picture of a Sagittarius starfield, 
where I talk about the vast size of the galaxy. Then I use the deep 
field picture - every dot is now more than was in the previous 
starfield! And in that picture, every single star has the potential to 
have a planet. A planet that could develop life, intelligence and 
technology. And if they did, they did it many billion years ago, since 
by now nearly all the stars in that picture have burned out and been 
replaced by new ones.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

From anders at aleph.se  Tue Feb 19 15:58:40 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:58:40 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Advancing Humanity Symposium
Message-ID: <5123A12F.102@aleph.se>

My friend and colleague Stuart Armstrong will be at the Advancing 
Humanity Symposium in Stanford on Saturday the 23rd, presenting our 
joint work on spamming the universe using megascale engineering.

I also notice some list members and list favorites there:
https://www.facebook.com/events/338219042964586/?fref=ts

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

From lubkin at unreasonable.com  Tue Feb 19 16:04:08 2013
From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:04:08 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Geek craft
Message-ID: <201302191604.r1JG4NCn015901@reva.xtremeunix.com>

For my friends in the intersection of geek and crafts. Once you've mastered
knitting a Klein bottle, how about a nice tesseract...?

-- David.

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Feb 19 17:29:12 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:29:12 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Advancing Humanity Symposium
In-Reply-To: <5123A12F.102@aleph.se>
References: <5123A12F.102@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:58 PM, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
> My friend and colleague Stuart Armstrong will be at the Advancing Humanity
> Symposium in Stanford on Saturday the 23rd, presenting our joint work on
> spamming the universe using megascale engineering.
>
> I also notice some list members and list favorites there:
> https://www.facebook.com/events/338219042964586/?fref=ts
>

And a lot of non-list members.
Get Stuart (or Natasha) to hand out sticker adverts for the Exi-chat list!

BillK

From atymes at gmail.com  Tue Feb 19 16:48:04 2013
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 08:48:04 -0800
Subject: [ExI]  Dark matter
Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:49 AM, BillK  wrote:
> We can only see normal matter,
> about 17%. Dark matter makes up 83%, and it is heavy, because we can
> detect the gravitational effects. Then there is dark energy as well.
> It seems presumptuous to claim that an advanced civilisation would be
> unable to make use of either.

Every time I hear of "dark matter", I am reminded of a certain
Hubble telescope shot where they took a picture of a portion of
the starfield where there appeared to be nothing - and, lo and
behold, it was filled with stuff, you just had to look for it.

I wonder if "dark matter" is nothing more or less than stars,
rogue planets, and the like that we have yet failed to detect,
the properties of which are otherwise just like anything else
of their type.  Occam's Razor.

(Of course, one might also conjecture some of this dark
matter is Dyson-sphere-enclosed stars which, for stealth,
radiate their waste heat perpendicular to the galactic disk,
so anyone else in the galaxy wouldn't see them.)

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Feb 19 18:57:14 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 10:57:14 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Geek craft
In-Reply-To: <201302191604.r1JG4NCn015901@reva.xtremeunix.com>
References: <201302191604.r1JG4NCn015901@reva.xtremeunix.com>
Message-ID: <009401ce0ed2$ef4f5d80$cdee1880$@att.net>

>... On Behalf Of David Lubkin
Subject: [ExI] Geek craft

>...For my friends in the intersection of geek and crafts. Once you've
mastered knitting a Klein bottle, how about a nice tesseract...?

-- David.

_______________________________________________

Making Klein bottles seems like an ideal application for 3D printers.
Perhaps you could make a 3D analog of a tesseract?

spike

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Tue Feb 19 18:41:58 2013
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 13:41:58 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <5123A089.8030604@aleph.se>
References: 

 <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>

 <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net>
 <5123A089.8030604@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 , Anders Sandberg  wrote:

> Suppose the Meaning of Life is maximizing pleasure. Then you should make
> as much pleasure-experiencing stuff as possible, and turn the universe into
> a pleasure maximizing system.
>

If its just a question of pleasure then the reason ET is missing could be
drugs or rather their electronic counterpart. If you want to feel good then
there is no need to actually do anything except turn a knob. I don't think
emotions and positive feedback loops play well together, and that could
happen if you had complete access to all the interior settings of your mind.

> Conversely, if the Meaning of Life is thinking truly deep and vast
> thoughts. Then you should colonize a few superclusters and move them
> together, converting it all into long-term computronium.

Maybe, or there might be a easier way. If you want to get that wonderful
feeling of understanding something new and profound about the universe then
just turn another knob, that way there is no need to go through all the
mess and bother and years of study to actually learn something. So ET could
be dumb as dog shit and still spend eternity feeling just as wonderful as
Einstein did on the day he discovered General Relativity.

On the other hand for this to be an explanation for why the universe does
not seem to be engineered the evolution of vast intelligence into lotus
eaters must happen 100% of the time and be a new law of physics because it
would just take one dissident individual to upset the entire apple cart.
The cost of building one Von Neumann probe would be
trivial for an advanced civilization, it would be like one of us purchasing
a candy bar. And even if the probe and its many many children moved no
faster than our Voyager 1 (very unlikely) it could reach every star in the
milky way in just 50 million years and the galaxy would be unrecognizable.
To a 13.7 billion year old universe 50 million years is just a blink of an
eye.

Or maybe the answer to the Fermi Paradox is the simplest and most obvious,
we're the first, after all somebody has to be.

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From scerir at alice.it  Tue Feb 19 19:26:33 2013
From: scerir at alice.it (scerir)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:26:33 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Dark matter
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: 

Adrian Tymes:

> I wonder if "dark matter" is nothing more or less than stars,
> rogue planets, and the like that we have yet failed to detect,
> the properties of which are otherwise just like anything else
> of their type.  Occam's Razor.

"The distribution of luminous and dark matter in galaxies 
shows amazing properties and a remarkable systematics 
that are bound to play a decisive role in discovering the 
nature of "Dark Matter Phenomenon" and in building a 
successful theory of Galaxy Formation."
http://arxiv.org/pdf/1302.2268.pdf

The ratios are 23-24% for dark matter, 4% for luminous matter, 
and about 73% for dark 'energy' (the vacuum 'energy' that exerts 
the pressure that expands the universe).  Dark matter is 
composed of a number of things. One candidate is the neutralino 
which is a condensate of SUSY partners of the photon, Z and Higgs 
particle. There are other SUSY partners which could play a role
as well. The other is the axion particle, which is a scalar field
from the trace of the SO(24) or SO(32) matrix. The other 
comes from variants of neutrinos. Or a mixture of all that. .

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Feb 19 19:33:20 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 11:33:20 -0800
Subject: [ExI] 2 minute history
Message-ID: <009801ce0ed7$f9ff51e0$edfdf5a0$@att.net>

Hey this cool, our history in 2 minutes:

http://marcbrecy.perso.neuf.fr/history.html

I wonder how it would be different from a transhumanist point of view?
There would definitely be far fewer political leaders in there, fewer armed
conflicts.  We may need to think about this and come up with a two minute
history of our own.

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Feb 19 19:46:34 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 19:46:34 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Dark matter
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> Every time I hear of "dark matter", I am reminded of a certain
> Hubble telescope shot where they took a picture of a portion of
> the starfield where there appeared to be nothing - and, lo and
> behold, it was filled with stuff, you just had to look for it.
>
> I wonder if "dark matter" is nothing more or less than stars,
> rogue planets, and the like that we have yet failed to detect,
> the properties of which are otherwise just like anything else
> of their type.  Occam's Razor.
>
>

You need six times as much 'dark' stuff as stuff we can see to make
the gravitational effects we can measure. That's a lot!

There is a new research report coming out in a few weeks that should
have useful data.

Quote:
Some physics theories suggest that dark matter is made of WIMPS
(weakly interacting massive particles), a class of particles that are
their own antimatter partner particles. When matter and antimatter
partners meet, they annihilate each other, so if two WIMPs collided,
they would be destroyed, releasing a pair of daughter particles ? an
electron and its antimatter counterpart, the positron, in the process.
----------

I don't understand this theory. I didn't think any antimatter was left
in our old universe.

BillK

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Feb 19 20:06:43 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:06:43 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 

 <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>

 <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net> <5123A089.8030604@aleph.se>

Message-ID: <00b701ce0edc$a44ae9d0$ece0bd70$@att.net>

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
.

>.Or maybe the answer to the Fermi Paradox is the simplest and most obvious,
we're the first, after all somebody has to be.John K Clark

Granted that is the simplest explanation but it isn't the most obvious to
me, after I gaze at that NASA deep space image.  When I gaze deeply into
that abyss until it gazes back into me, I cannot fathom that we are the
first and only.

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Feb 19 20:11:03 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:11:03 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Dark matter
In-Reply-To: 
References: 

Message-ID: <00c501ce0edd$3e902b40$bbb081c0$@att.net>

>... On Behalf Of scerir
Subject: Re: [ExI] Dark matter

Adrian Tymes:

> I wonder if "dark matter" is nothing more or less than stars, rogue 
> planets, and the like that we have yet failed to detect, the 
> properties of which are otherwise just like anything else of their 
> type.  Occam's Razor.

I don't recall which studies, but several years ago I saw convincing
refutations of the notion that the apparently missing mass could be ordinary
matter.  For a long time it seemed reasonable to me, but for the missing
mass to be ordinary matter would require a lot of time to form supernovae to
cook the heavier elements, etc.  I don't recall all the arguments that the
missing mass cannot be rogue black holes and planets, but they worked on me
back in the days when I was looking at this more closely.

spike

From atymes at gmail.com  Tue Feb 19 20:30:52 2013
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 12:30:52 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Dark matter
In-Reply-To: 
References: 

Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 11:46 AM, BillK  wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:48 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:
>> Every time I hear of "dark matter", I am reminded of a certain
>> Hubble telescope shot where they took a picture of a portion of
>> the starfield where there appeared to be nothing - and, lo and
>> behold, it was filled with stuff, you just had to look for it.
>>
>> I wonder if "dark matter" is nothing more or less than stars,
>> rogue planets, and the like that we have yet failed to detect,
>> the properties of which are otherwise just like anything else
>> of their type.  Occam's Razor.
>
> You need six times as much 'dark' stuff as stuff we can see to make
> the gravitational effects we can measure. That's a lot!

And?  People keep saying that as if it's good reason for disbelief,
but the data - such as that Hubble shot - seems to substantiate
that there's a lot more ordinary matter than we have yet seen.

From lubkin at unreasonable.com  Tue Feb 19 22:56:07 2013
From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 17:56:07 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Buy me buy me buy me
Message-ID: <201302192256.r1JMuHTw006134@andromeda.ziaspace.com>

I don't usually like tie-in merchandise but this caught my eye.
Valentine's Day has gone by but I know a birthday that shall not
pass without some of these.

And this is snicker-worthy:

-- David.

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Tue Feb 19 23:06:08 2013
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:06:08 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Laser propulsion for power sats--objections
Message-ID: 

I asked and got permission to post a bit from a discussion on another
mailing list

(Keith)

>> I have thought about this for a long time now.  If China decides to
>> solve their energy and carbon problems (which affect the rest of the
>> world) and they decide to do it with power satellites using propulsion
>> lasers instead of say, nuclear reactors, what is can other nations do
>> about it?
>
> umm....  they can say "don't do it or we will blow you off the face of the
> earth"

They announced they were going to do it last Nov. 2.  I suppose if we
are going to tell them to stop, we should do it now.

I can't guarantee that they intend to use lasers powered by their
first power satellite, but the physics and economics are
overwhelmingly favorable to doing that way.

> put it the other way - the united states decides to put lasers in orbit that
> can
> vaporize anything on the surface on a moments notice and nobody can do
> anything about it?  I think that project ever happens?  like, Russia and
China

I don't see them freaking out about Predator drones and Hellfire
missiles.  Those will kill people every bit as dead as a propulsion
laser beam.  But if the US wanted to build propulsion lasers, I don't
see what other countries could do about it.  Of course the US would
claim to be a good guy and never abuse the power, not to mention
selling power satellites to all who wanted them.

> don't see that as a problem?  Yes, the see it as a huge problem.

Do you really think other countries would start a preemptive nuclear
war with the US over this?  (Not that the US is likely to build
propulsion lasers unless someone like China was already doing it.)

>> In fact, given the dire predictions about global climate
>> effects of more CO2, do they even want to complain?
>
> yes, they want to complain.  lets look at the DoD budget - lets look at the
> budget for CO2 mitigation.  lets look at the % of congress who will buy into
> "lasers in the sky are bad unless they are ours" vs. the % that are
supporting
> cap and trade and other CO2 mitigation?
>
> Seriously, nobody likes the sword of damocles hanging over their heads,
> operated by someone who they are placing aircraft carriers against......
> We almost went to war over this in the past:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FOBS
>
The article says the USSR deployed them and the US came up with
counters making the value of them marginal.

>> Consider http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wenchang_Satellite_Launch_Center
>> at 111 deg E as the launch point.  For laser assist to LEO, the laser
>> should be located over a point ~2000 km to the east or ~129 deg E.
>> Darwin in Australia is at 130 deg E.  No part of the US is visible
>> from that location at GEO except the Hawaiian Islands and some
>> uninhabited US islands, Baker, Howland and Jarvis.  Australia, all of
>> south east Asia, Japan and India are in view.
>>
>> The Chinese have offered to build power satellites with India.
>>
http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-11-02/india/34877401_1_space-solar-power-space-collaboration-v-ponraj
>> They could do the same with Japan.  Japan's recent experience with
>> Fukushima Daiichi has left them desperate for an energy solution.
>> Before the tsunami Japan had the most advanced plans in the world for
>> power satellites.
>>
>> I don't know how the Chinese would cope with the complaints of the
>> other south east Asia countries or Australia if they build power sats
>> using propulsion lasers.  I suppose they could make the point that
>> they already have enough nukes to do more damage than a laser would
>> inflict.
>
> these political dimensions define what is possible, just as much as
technical
> dimensions do.   International consortium are a possibility for something
like
> this, but the trust between nations is very unlikely to allow it, in my
> opinion.....

Well, though they might not have understood exactly what was being
proposed, it looks to me like the Indians accepted the offer to
jointly build power satellites.

One of the consequences of power satellites is that offshore oil no
longer matters.  (Synthetic is way cheaper.)

Keith

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Feb 19 22:07:07 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 22:07:07 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Dark matter
In-Reply-To: 
References: 

Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Adrian Tymes  wrote:
> And?  People keep saying that as if it's good reason for disbelief,
> but the data - such as that Hubble shot - seems to substantiate
> that there's a lot more ordinary matter than we have yet seen.
>

It's not called 'dark' because it is not radiating. We can see dust
clouds because dust blocks or reflects light.

But we can see right through dark matter. 'Dark matter' doesn't
radiate light OR absorb light (or react with any electro-magnetic
radiation). We can only infer it's existence from seeing gravitational
effects, so we can calculate the required missing mass.

Nobody yet knows what it is.

BillK

From atymes at gmail.com  Tue Feb 19 23:48:00 2013
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:48:00 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Laser propulsion for power sats--objections
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: 

Brief devil's advocate nit:

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 3:06 PM, Keith Henson  wrote:
>> put it the other way - the united states decides to put lasers in orbit that
>> can
>> vaporize anything on the surface on a moments notice and nobody can do
>> anything about it?  I think that project ever happens?  like, Russia and
> China
>
> I don't see them freaking out about Predator drones and Hellfire
> missiles.  Those will kill people every bit as dead as a propulsion
> laser beam.

Those are demonstrably not yet aimed at Russia and China.
Further, if they were launched against targets inland in those
countries - say, their respective capital cities - they could be
shot down before they could strike.

With laser sats, this is not the case.  Not without taking them
out of their peaceful role.

From anders at aleph.se  Tue Feb 19 23:50:29 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:50:29 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Geek craft
In-Reply-To: <009401ce0ed2$ef4f5d80$cdee1880$@att.net>
References: <201302191604.r1JG4NCn015901@reva.xtremeunix.com>
 <009401ce0ed2$ef4f5d80$cdee1880$@att.net>
Message-ID: <51240FC5.3020501@aleph.se>

On 19/02/2013 19:57, spike wrote:
> Making Klein bottles seems like an ideal application for 3D printers. 
> Perhaps you could make a 3D analog of a tesseract?

I have one on my desk!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arenamontanus/4015387748/
It is one of Bathsheba Grossman's 3D printed sculptures - 
http://www.bathsheba.com  - note the Klein bottle-opener on the main page.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

From atymes at gmail.com  Tue Feb 19 23:54:55 2013
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 15:54:55 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Dark matter
In-Reply-To: 
References: 

Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 2:07 PM, BillK  wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 8:30 PM, Adrian Tymes  wrote:
>> And?  People keep saying that as if it's good reason for disbelief,
>> but the data - such as that Hubble shot - seems to substantiate
>> that there's a lot more ordinary matter than we have yet seen.
>
> It's not called 'dark' because it is not radiating. We can see dust
> clouds because dust blocks or reflects light.

How much mass is hidden behind the dust clouds?

> But we can see right through dark matter. 'Dark matter' doesn't
> radiate light OR absorb light (or react with any electro-magnetic
> radiation). We can only infer it's existence from seeing gravitational
> effects, so we can calculate the required missing mass.

Consider again the observational evidence: we aren't
seeing everything that *does* radiate light.

> Nobody yet knows what it is.

Right, but all these strange explanations keep getting
offered and talked about, and the simple solution does
not seem to be getting much consideration.

From anders at aleph.se  Wed Feb 20 00:07:04 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 01:07:04 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Dark matter
In-Reply-To: 
References: 

Message-ID: <512413A8.100@aleph.se>

On 20/02/2013 00:54, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> Right, but all these strange explanations keep getting offered and 
> talked about, and the simple solution does not seem to be getting much 
> consideration.

It was, way back in the 90s. Check out any astrophysics textbook that 
has some historical detail.

Rotation curves are pretty good evidence. They reveal not just the 
presence of dark matter inside the galaxy, but around it in a halo (as 
evidenced by velocities of orbiting satellite galaxies and clusters). 
Now if that had been opaque stuff you would not have seen the galaxy. If 
it had been pointlike objects (like loads of of brown dwarves) you would 
have seen occultations and gravity lensing - but the MACHO searches 
turned up nothing.

Remember that explanations on a list for the educated public is not the 
same thing as a proper review paper.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

From spike66 at att.net  Wed Feb 20 00:04:45 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:04:45 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Geek craft
In-Reply-To: <51240FC5.3020501@aleph.se>
References: <201302191604.r1JG4NCn015901@reva.xtremeunix.com>
 <009401ce0ed2$ef4f5d80$cdee1880$@att.net> <51240FC5.3020501@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <00ed01ce0efd$e49afb80$add0f280$@att.net>

>... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
Subject: Re: [ExI] Geek craft

On 19/02/2013 19:57, spike wrote:
> Making Klein bottles seems like an ideal application for 3D printers. 
> Perhaps you could make a 3D analog of a tesseract?

I have one on my desk!
http://www.flickr.com/photos/arenamontanus/4015387748/
It is one of Bathsheba Grossman's 3D printed sculptures -
http://www.bathsheba.com  - note the Klein bottle-opener on the main page.

--
Anders Sandberg
_______________________________________________

Sigh, all my ideas are either old or wrong, sometimes both, but never
simultaneously new and right.  That square of the quadrant seems forever
denied to me.

Cool tesseract Anders!

{8-]

spike

From protokol2020 at gmail.com  Tue Feb 19 15:48:57 2013
From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 16:48:57 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net>
References: 

 <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>

 <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net>
Message-ID: 

> Every time I close all my windows I am struck with this picture of one
tiny
patch of sky containing at least several hundred galaxies, each with
billions of stars.  I just can't get my head around the notion that
intelligence came together only once with all that out there.  There must be
something fundamental we are missing or still haven't discovered.

It is just not enough of galaxies that a coin could land 200 times head up,
if one was tossed every second on every plane.

Or just about once. The same holds for life.

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 4:04 PM, spike  wrote:

>
> >... On Behalf Of BillK
> >...
>
>
> >...Well, we are faced with a lack of evidence of *any* intelligent
> civilisations out there. To the ends of the universe everything looks
> natural. The evidence says that we are alone. Or all intelligence remains
> at
> a low level with undetectable effects... BillK
>
> Ja, or intelligence remains at a high level with undetectable effects.
> Agreed it seems even if technology passes through a detectable phase only
> briefly, if intelligence is common we should have seen something somewhere
> by now.
>
> I am toying with the possibility that intelligence does self-limit, for
> reasons we don't yet understand.  If we have 100 billion people, would we
> eventually decide that's enough?  Is there any reason to think we would be
> better off with fewer, smarter brains than just in creating more and more
> like the current ones?
>
> In any case I have as a background on my computer one of NASA's deep space
> images, specifically this one:
>
>
> http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.californiaindianeducation.org
> /science_lab/pics/space_photos/Space_Deep.jpg&imgrefurl=
> http://www.californi
>
> aindianeducation.org/science_lab/deep_space.html&h=1280&w=1280&sz=313&tbnid=
>
> Ey0x065UfCHxiM:&tbnh=97&tbnw=97&zoom=1&usg=__RYOYXM71Q9zFv5qmKAmnoOuJJh0=&do
>
> cid=aMxpONmDhV5cKM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=85MjUc_FEobtiQKbgIEI&ved=0CDIQ9QEwAA&dur=90
> 5
>
> Every time I close all my windows I am struck with this picture of one tiny
> patch of sky containing at least several hundred galaxies, each with
> billions of stars.  I just can't get my head around the notion that
> intelligence came together only once with all that out there.  There must
> be
> something fundamental we are missing or still haven't discovered.
>
> 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 spike66 at att.net  Wed Feb 20 02:53:35 2013
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 18:53:35 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 

 <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>

 <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net>

Message-ID: <001401ce0f15$7a7bd9f0$6f738dd0$@att.net>

>. On Behalf Of Tomaz Kristan
Subject: Re: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1

>>. I am struck with this picture {NASA deep space image} of one tiny
patch of sky containing at least several hundred galaxies, each with
billions of stars.  I just can't get my head around the notion that
intelligence came together only once with all that out there.  There must be
something fundamental we are missing or still haven't discovered.

>.It is just not enough of galaxies that a coin could land 200 times head
up, if one was tossed every second on every plane.

>.Or just about once. The same holds for life.  Tomaz

Well now let's look at that Tomaz.  If coins are tossed 2^200 times then the
probability of 200 consecutive heads coming up at least once in that
sequence is about 63%.  2^200 is about 1^60, so let's take the generally
accepted estimate of the number of stars in the observable universe at about
100 billion galaxies times about 100 billion stars per galaxy, and ignore
for the moment that the estimate is generally higher in recent years.  Then
the number of stars is about E22, and we can imagine that a fairly typical
star has about between 1 and 10 orbiting objects on average, keeping in mind
that our sun has about 50 that meet this description because we include
larger satellites but not all those asteroids.  But assume about 10 per star
for conservative measure, so about 1E23 orbiting objects, and now using your
one coin per second, and accepting the estimated 14 billion year life of the
universe and leave some time for heavy elements to be cooked up in stars and
subsequently being supernova-ed into the cosmos to form accretion discs and
planets, so about 1E33 planet-years which is about 3E40 planet-seconds since
the observable universe was about 4 billion years along from the big bang.
So if we want to have that .63 probability, we need not one coin toss per
planet second, but rather about 3E19 coin tosses per planet-second.  

OK then, what if we get one coin toss per square meter of planet surface,
rather than one coin toss per planet second?  I see this as perfectly
reasonable; if you are a bit of goo trying to become a lifeform, you are
small, so a square meter is a lotta area.  The surface area of our typical
planet is about 4pi(6300000)^2 or about 5e14 m2, so we have about 1.5E55,
which still leaves us over 4 orders of magnitude short, so let us recognize
and press a little harder on the previous notion that to a bit of organic
goo, a square meter is a nice sized playground, and recognize that a square
millimeter is a pretty good sized backyard too.  If you do that, we get
about 1.5E61 square-cm-seconds in the post-big-bang observable universe,
which is about 15 times the original target of 2^200.  

So if we want to go with that perfectly arbitrary estimate of life
probability and perfectly arbitrary estimate of the reference area for an
orbiting object, we might reasonably estimate 15 tech-enabled civilizations,
out there somewhere, possibly in this small patch of sky:

http://www.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.thespiritualeclectic.com/wp-c
ontent/uploads/2010/01/nasa1.jpg

&imgrefurl=http://www.thespiritualeclectic.com/2010/01/18/mid-life-options-w
here-do-we-go-from-here/&h=600&w=800&sz=63&tbnid=3Z4m2wYqx3s7FM:&tbnh=89&tbn
w=119&zoom=1&usg=__ekjgCXYJE1oVVIqP5vMlpiW5czY=&docid=PETZDSnWCDTFqM&hl=en&s
a=X&ei=WjkkUdPaFeXAiwLI64GADg&ved=0CFMQ9QEwCg&dur=140

Do stare at this photo for a while please, until it stares back, then remind
me, what were we talking about?

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 00:26:55 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 00:26:55 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Geek craft
In-Reply-To: <00ed01ce0efd$e49afb80$add0f280$@att.net>
References: <201302191604.r1JG4NCn015901@reva.xtremeunix.com>
 <009401ce0ed2$ef4f5d80$cdee1880$@att.net>
 <51240FC5.3020501@aleph.se>
 <00ed01ce0efd$e49afb80$add0f280$@att.net>
Message-ID: 

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:04 AM, spike wrote:
>
> Cool tesseract Anders!
>
>

And when he presses the 'ON' button -----

:)

BillK

From atymes at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 04:23:03 2013
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:23:03 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <001401ce0f15$7a7bd9f0$6f738dd0$@att.net>
References: 

 <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>

 <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net>

 <001401ce0f15$7a7bd9f0$6f738dd0$@att.net>
Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:53 PM, spike  wrote:
> 2^200 is about 1^60

You're missing a 0 there, I think.

From spike at rainier66.com  Wed Feb 20 04:56:04 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 20:56:04 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 

 <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>

 <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net>

 <001401ce0f15$7a7bd9f0$6f738dd0$@att.net>

Message-ID: <006401ce0f26$96f203a0$c4d60ae0$@rainier66.com>

... On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Subject: Re: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:53 PM, spike  wrote:
> 2^200 is about 1^60

You're missing a 0 there, I think.
_______________________________________________

Doh!

Actually I am missing an E with an extra ^.  But missing a 0 works too.
10^60 or 1E60.

This is a test.  I started a new domain for a website I am plotting and
scheming to create, so if you think of it, change your email @ for me to

spike at rainier66.com

spike

From spike at rainier66.com  Wed Feb 20 05:56:16 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 21:56:16 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <006401ce0f26$96f203a0$c4d60ae0$@rainier66.com>
References: 

 <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>

 <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net>

 <001401ce0f15$7a7bd9f0$6f738dd0$@att.net>

 <006401ce0f26$96f203a0$c4d60ae0$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: <006b01ce0f2e$ff6e8b30$fe4ba190$@rainier66.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike
Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 8:56 PM
To: 'ExI chat list'
Subject: Re: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1

... On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Subject: Re: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 6:53 PM, spike  wrote:
> 2^200 is about 1^60

You're missing a 0 there, I think.
_______________________________________________

Doh!

>...Actually I am missing an E with an extra ^.  But missing a 0 works too.
10^60 or 1E60...

I made another mistake in that original post.  I said in one place square cm
seconds, but calculated square millimeter-seconds, so the cm should have
been mm, all numbers the same.  So using all those estimates, I get about
1E61 mm^2-seconds since a few billion years after the big bang.  So if you
had coin-flips, one every perfectly arbitrary measure of a square millimeter
on every orbiting body per perfectly arbitrary time span of one second, then
you get about 1e61 coin flips in the last 10 billion years.

If your mind is insufficiently blown by that, consider the GIMPS project.
With the rate at which it is searching for new record primes, the size of
the numbers it is checking generally increases by a factor of 1E61, that is
to say they become 1E61 times larger about every 20 minutes, day and night,
3600/24/365, year after year, every 20 minutes getting larger by a factor
approximated by the number of square millimeters on every planet in the
observable universe times the number of seconds since there was enough
non-hydrogen and non-helium to start forming actual planets, so you
extra-terrestrial bastards wanting to invade this lonely planet better watch
yourselves, we have 48 Mersenne primes, the largest with over 17 million
decimal digits, which means we have a scary amount of intellectual and
computing resources to squander on fun silliness.

spike

From andymck35 at gmail.com  Thu Feb 21 02:25:54 2013
From: andymck35 at gmail.com (Andrew Mckee)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:25:54 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Dark matter
In-Reply-To: <512413A8.100@aleph.se>
References: 

 <512413A8.100@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On a related note, does plasma physics get much of a mention in the dark matter debate these days?

From anders at aleph.se  Wed Feb 20 11:30:47 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 12:30:47 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Dark matter
In-Reply-To: 
References: 

 <512413A8.100@aleph.se> 
Message-ID: <5124B3E7.4010707@aleph.se>

On 21/02/2013 03:25, Andrew Mckee wrote:
>
> On a related note, does plasma physics get much of a mention in the 
> dark matter debate these days?

Not that I see. Dark matter halo models are uncharged.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 20 11:45:27 2013
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 03:45:27 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 

 <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>

 <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net> <5123A089.8030604@aleph.se>

Message-ID: <1361360727.93284.YahooMailNeo@web160502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

________________________________
> From: John Clark 
>To: ExI chat list  
>Sent: Tuesday, February 19, 2013 10:41 AM
>Subject: Re: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
>??
>
>On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 , Anders Sandberg  wrote:

>On the other hand for this to be an explanation for why the universe does not seem to be engineered the evolution of vast intelligence into lotus eaters must happen 100% of the time and be a new law of physics because it would just take one dissident individual to upset the entire apple cart.
?
Perhaps your new law of physics?should be?that "cultures of an intelligent species cannot exist without inherent politics."??The dissidents you speak of are probably?universally supressed by politics in all examples to date. Poor Keith can't get SBSP past the international politics of "scary lasers in space" and the TSA wants to grope me so?why would you?assume an uber-advanced species would be collectively any less oppressive towards any individual?who espoused anything but status quo lotuses and circuses? Intelligence is at least as rare in the universe at large as it is on earth. That is to say very and thus unlikely to get its way in a democracy.?
?
>?The cost of building one Von Neumann probe would be
>trivial for an advanced civilization, it would be like one of us purchasing a candy bar.
?
The monetary and energetic cost would be miniscule, but the aesthetic and genetic cost would be quite high.?Like a candy bar that caused genocide by turning your and everybody's?elses atoms into more candy bars.
?
>And even if the probe and its many many children moved no faster than our Voyager 1 (very unlikely) it could reach every star in the milky way in just 50 million years and the galaxy would be unrecognizable. To a 13.7 billion year old universe 50 million years is just a blink of an eye.

I am glad none of the handful of civilized worlds likely in our galaxy has gone that route . . . yet.
?
-------------
?
>Or maybe the answer to the Fermi Paradox is the simplest and most obvious, we're the first, after all somebody has to be.
?
Ahh but?in celebration of?his birthday, I will invoke the Copernican principle and say that we are unlikely to be the first. I would say that there is about a 2/3 prior chance that we are one standard deviation above or below the mean in age or advancement for civilizations. Also keep in mind that only civilizations indigenous to?any of the 14600 stars within our radio light-cone have any chance of detecting us and vice versa.?The universe is vast and you have sampled only a small speck of it. It would be unwise to extrapolate that ridiculous sample to the universe at large.??
?
?
Stuart LaForge
?
?
"Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to heaven." - William Shakespeare

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Feb 20 13:43:22 2013
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 14:43:22 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <1361360727.93284.YahooMailNeo@web160502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: 

 <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>

 <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net> <5123A089.8030604@aleph.se>

 <1361360727.93284.YahooMailNeo@web160502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20130220134322.GP6172@leitl.org>

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 03:45:27AM -0800, The Avantguardian wrote:

> Perhaps your new law of physics?should be?that "cultures of an intelligent species 

Intelligent species are a subset of all expansive species.

> cannot exist without inherent politics."??

Politics is a very small subset of all interactions in a postecosystem.

> The dissidents you speak of are probably?universally supressed by politics in all examples to date. Poor Keith can't get SBSP past the international politics of "scary lasers in space" and the TSA wants to grope me so?why would you?assume an uber-advanced species would be collectively any less oppressive towards any individual?who espoused anything but status quo lotuses and circuses? Intelligence is at least as rare in the universe at large as it is on earth. That is to say very and thus unlikely to get its way in a democracy.?

My aquarium is not a democracy.
 ?
> >?The cost of building one Von Neumann probe would be
> >trivial for an advanced civilization, it would be like one of us purchasing a candy bar.
> ?
> The monetary and energetic cost would be miniscule, but the aesthetic and genetic cost would be quite high.?

Bzzt, parse error.

> Like a candy bar that caused genocide by turning your and everybody's?elses atoms into more candy bars.

Instructions unclear, converted universe to candy bars.
Then ated them.
?
> >And even if the probe and its many many children moved no faster than our Voyager 1 (very unlikely) it could reach every star in the milky way in just 50 million years and the galaxy would be unrecognizable. To a 13.7 billion year old universe 50 million years is just a blink of an eye.
> 
> I am glad none of the handful of civilized worlds likely in our galaxy has gone that route . . . yet.
> ?
> -------------
> ?
> >Or maybe the answer to the Fermi Paradox is the simplest and most obvious, we're the first, after all somebody has to be.
> ?
> Ahh but?in celebration of?his birthday, I will invoke the Copernican principle and say that we are unlikely to be the first. 

It's a statement we can feel good about, but unfortunately it's
not supported by any data.

> I would say that there is about a 2/3 prior chance that we are one standard 
> deviation above or below the mean in age or advancement for civilizations. 

Bzzt, no data.

> Also keep in mind that only civilizations indigenous to?any of the 14600 
> stars within our radio light-cone have any chance of detecting us and vice versa.?

If we don't collape there will be measurable stellar dimming
in about a century scale, if not earlier.

> The universe is vast and you have sampled only a small speck of it. 
> It would be unwise to extrapolate that ridiculous sample to the universe at large.??

Expansive life is impossible to miss across GLYr distances, unless
observability is censored by relativistic expansion + anthropic principle.
What we see is exactly what we can expect to see.

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Feb 20 14:22:07 2013
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:22:07 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <00b701ce0edc$a44ae9d0$ece0bd70$@att.net>
References: 

 <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>

 <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net> <5123A089.8030604@aleph.se>

 <00b701ce0edc$a44ae9d0$ece0bd70$@att.net>
Message-ID: <20130220142207.GQ6172@leitl.org>

On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 12:06:43PM -0800, spike wrote:

> Granted that is the simplest explanation but it isn't the most obvious to
> me, after I gaze at that NASA deep space image.  When I gaze deeply into
> that abyss until it gazes back into me, I cannot fathom that we are the
> first and only.

We need a sample not causally correlated with us, which probably
excludes the entire solar system (unless it's obvious that
there have been several, independant life emergence events,
not hopelessly overgrown by impact ejecta crosscontamination). 

Even if you can detect abundant life by spectroscopy across
a population of 10^4 of stars in our direct neighborhood,
it doesn't tell you about life that is smart enough to
be expansive. Because you need at least one independant
sample to estimate the other coefficients of the Drake
equation.

Expansive life doesn't just gaze, it visits. And changes
stellar system in its wake. 

From spike at rainier66.com  Wed Feb 20 15:48:34 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 07:48:34 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <1361360727.93284.YahooMailNeo@web160502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: 

 <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>

 <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net> <5123A089.8030604@aleph.se>

 <1361360727.93284.YahooMailNeo@web160502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <004d01ce0f81$bdca4270$395ec750$@rainier66.com>

>... On Behalf Of The Avantguardian
...
>...Perhaps your new law of physics?should be?that "cultures of an
intelligent species cannot exist without inherent politics."??...Stuart
LaForge
?
_______________________________________________

I have long had a notion that we are missing something fundamentally
important in the Fermi question.  Stuart gets close to it with his comment.
Imagine that intelligence cannot evolve without competition, generation
after generation for eons, allowing the most extreme in every niche to
gradually rise to the top in whatever it is, so that you end up with a
particular species that is the swiftest carnivore, the fiercest defender,
the smartest beast.  That part of the argument is intuitive.  Now follow it
to the next step: that same characteristic of competition which created the
intelligent species eventually either limits or destroys further progress.
By that model, competition giveth and competition taketh away.

spike

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Wed Feb 20 15:39:32 2013
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 07:39:32 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <20130220134322.GP6172@leitl.org>
References: 

 <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>

 <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net> <5123A089.8030604@aleph.se>

 <1361360727.93284.YahooMailNeo@web160502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <20130220134322.GP6172@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <1361374772.78283.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

>________________________________
> From: Eugen Leitl 
>To: The Avantguardian ; ExI chat list  
>Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2013 5:43 AM
>Subject: Re: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
>??
>On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 03:45:27AM -0800, The Avantguardian wrote:
>
>> Perhaps your new law of physics?should be?that "cultures of an intelligent species 
>
>Intelligent species are a subset of all expansive species.

True but non-intelligent post biota will?likely be too busy eating one another?to build Von Neumann probes.
?
>My aquarium is not a democracy.

Your aquarium also stands little chance of being detected by an ET civilization as well or colonizing the galaxy.
?
>> ?
>> Ahh but?in celebration of?his birthday, I will invoke the Copernican principle and say that we are unlikely to be the first. 
>
>It's a statement we can feel good about, but unfortunately it's
>not supported by any data.
>
>> I would say that there is about a 2/3 prior chance that we are one standard 
>> deviation above or below the mean in age or advancement for civilizations. 
>
>Bzzt, no data.

Correct. That is why it is called a *prior*. When we get data, we get to update our priors and calculate posteriors.
?
>> Also keep in mind that only civilizations indigenous to?any of the 14600 
>> stars within our radio light-cone have any chance of detecting us and vice versa.?
>
>If we don't collape there will be measurable stellar dimming
>in about a century scale, if not earlier.

So how many long-period eclipsing binaries out there aren't really binary stars?at all but are instead works in progress?
?
>> The universe is vast and you have sampled only a small speck of it. 
>> It would be unwise to extrapolate that ridiculous sample to the universe at large.??
>
>Expansive life is impossible to miss across GLYr distances, unless
>observability is censored by relativistic expansion + anthropic principle.
>What we see is exactly what we can expect to see.

If a civilization turned the Andromeda galaxy to computronium 2 Myrs ago, we wouldn't notice for another 500 kyrs. So don't wait up.
?
Stuart LaForge
?
"Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to heaven." - William Shakespeare

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Feb 20 16:09:16 2013
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 17:09:16 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <1361374772.78283.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: 

 <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>

 <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net> <5123A089.8030604@aleph.se>

 <1361360727.93284.YahooMailNeo@web160502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <20130220134322.GP6172@leitl.org>
 <1361374772.78283.YahooMailNeo@web160503.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <20130220160916.GG6172@leitl.org>

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 07:39:32AM -0800, The Avantguardian wrote:

> >Intelligent species are a subset of all expansive species.
> 
> True but non-intelligent post biota will?likely be too busy eating one another?to build Von Neumann probes.

They are not building von Neuman probes. They *are* von Neuman probes.
Why did the astrochicken cross the void? To get to the other star.
Sex needs to intelligence. The properties of the originating organisms
do not matter, as they're erased over time. Making you smarter
slows you down, so being smart is a negative fitness matric for
pioneers.

When humans travelled across the sea, they encountered islands
already full of life, albeit not human one. A fertile world abhors 
pockets of sterility.
 ?
> >My aquarium is not a democracy.
> 
> Your aquarium also stands little chance of being detected by an ET civilization as well or colonizing the galaxy.

The galaxy is just one aquarium, as far as postbiota are concerned.
 ?
> >If we don't collape there will be measurable stellar dimming
> >in about a century scale, if not earlier.
> 
> So how many long-period eclipsing binaries out there aren't really binary stars?at all but are instead works in progress?

They're not binaries, they're going from a naked star with a planetary
system to a ~AU FIR blackbody effectively overnight (century scale).

http://arxiv.org/abs/0811.2376

IRAS-based whole-sky upper limit on Dyson Spheres

Richard A. Carrigan Jr

(Submitted on 14 Nov 2008 (v1), last revised 10 Mar 2009 (this version, v2))

A Dyson Sphere is a hypothetical construct of a star purposely cloaked by a thick swarm of broken-up planetary material to better utilize all of the stellar energy. A clean Dyson Sphere identification would give a significant signature for intelligence at work. A search for Dyson Spheres has been carried out using the 250,000 source database of the IRAS infrared satellite which covered 96% of the sky. The search has used the Calgary database for the IRAS Low Resolution Spectrometer (LRS) to look for fits to blackbody spectra. Searches have been conducted for both pure (fully cloaked) and partial Dyson Spheres in the blackbody temperature region 100 < T < 600 K. When other stellar signatures that resemble a Dyson Sphere are used to eliminate sources that mimic Dyson Spheres very few candidates remain and even these are ambiguous. Upper limits are presented for both pure and partial Dyson Spheres. The sensitivity of the LRS was enough to find Dyson Spheres with the luminosity of the sun out to 300 pc, a reach that encompasses a million solar- type stars.
 ?
> >> The universe is vast and you have sampled only a small speck of it. 
> >> It would be unwise to extrapolate that ridiculous sample to the universe at large.??
> >
> >Expansive life is impossible to miss across GLYr distances, unless
> >observability is censored by relativistic expansion + anthropic principle.
> >What we see is exactly what we can expect to see.
> 
> If a civilization turned the Andromeda galaxy to computronium 2 Myrs ago, we wouldn't notice for another 500 kyrs. So don't wait up.

We won't notice, because the observation window (before you see something,
and before the blue rains start) is too damn short it's arbitrarily improbable.

From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Feb 20 15:23:38 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 15:23:38 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <20130220142207.GQ6172@leitl.org>
References: 

 <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>

 <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net>
 <5123A089.8030604@aleph.se>

 <00b701ce0edc$a44ae9d0$ece0bd70$@att.net>
 <20130220142207.GQ6172@leitl.org>
Message-ID: 

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:

> Expansive life doesn't just gaze, it visits. And changes
> stellar system in its wake.
> _______________________________________________
>

Exactly!  So why are we still here? (As the universe is billions of years old).

What we see tells us that advanced civs are not expansive and don't
change stellar systems.
(You seem to be hung up on insisting that advanced civs will behave
like viruses. What is intelligence for, if not to control
over-breeding?).

Your theory seems to be like saying there must be a monster hiding
under the bed or in a cupboard. We can't see it, but just you wait,
any minute now it is going to leap out and grab you!  :)

BillK

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Feb 20 17:28:55 2013
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 20 Feb 2013 18:28:55 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 

 <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>

 <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net> <5123A089.8030604@aleph.se>

 <00b701ce0edc$a44ae9d0$ece0bd70$@att.net> <20130220142207.GQ6172@leitl.org>

Message-ID: <20130220172855.GH6172@leitl.org>

On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 03:23:38PM +0000, BillK wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 2:22 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> 
> > Expansive life doesn't just gaze, it visits. And changes
> > stellar system in its wake.
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> 
> Exactly!  So why are we still here? (As the universe is billions of years old).

How do you watch yourself having never been born?

The universe might be old, but what you see that far *is*
gigayears old. Metallicity goes up via stellar nucleosynthesis,
and in general the early environment seems to be a lot
harsher than now. But that has nothing to do with
how rare observable life is. It just says that the
farther you look, the worse are the odds.

> What we see tells us that advanced civs are not expansive and don't

No, it doesn't tell you that at all. Self-observation
is not a valid source of probability values. The dies
are massively weighted in your favor. What we need is
fair dice, and we don't have access to these yet.

> change stellar systems.
> (You seem to be hung up on insisting that advanced civs will behave

Darwinian selection assures diversity, towards all ends of the
complexity spectrum. Darwinian systems are out of control, and
hence some species, even a dominant one, is in no position to
enforce policy.

You are a member of the local dominant, intelligent (well, ok)
species. How much control do you exert over the members of just
your own species, nevermind the hissing cockroaches halfway
around the world?

> like viruses. What is intelligence for, if not to control
> over-breeding?).

Intelligence which limits breeding appears a negatively selective
trait.

> Your theory seems to be like saying there must be a monster hiding
> under the bed or in a cupboard. We can't see it, but just you wait,
> any minute now it is going to leap out and grab you!  :)

No, my theory is that you will never see that monster.
Unless you look in the mirror, that is.

From anders at aleph.se  Thu Feb 21 11:26:22 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 11:26:22 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <004d01ce0f81$bdca4270$395ec750$@rainier66.com>
References: 

 <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>

 <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net> <5123A089.8030604@aleph.se>

 <1361360727.93284.YahooMailNeo@web160502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <004d01ce0f81$bdca4270$395ec750$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: <5126045E.5080401@aleph.se>

On 20/02/2013 15:48, spike wrote:
> ...Perhaps your new law of physics should be that "cultures of an intelligent species cannot exist without inherent politics."  ...Stuart LaForge
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> I have long had a notion that we are missing something fundamentally
> important in the Fermi question.  Stuart gets close to it with his comment.
> Imagine that intelligence cannot evolve without competition, generation
> after generation for eons, allowing the most extreme in every niche to
> gradually rise to the top in whatever it is, so that you end up with a
> particular species that is the swiftest carnivore, the fiercest defender,
> the smartest beast.  That part of the argument is intuitive.  Now follow it
> to the next step: that same characteristic of competition which created the
> intelligent species eventually either limits or destroys further progress.
> By that model, competition giveth and competition taketh away.

At my talk, a somewhat similar question came up during the discussion. 
Given that life is fundamentally expansive, shouldn't we expect it to be 
very competitive and hence rather aggressive?

My answer was based on an observation Drexler made in one of the agorics 
papers. Yes, replicators soon run out of unclaimed resources and 
compete. But competition can be done in a lot of different ways. Humans 
do not just compete by stealing stuff or killing each other. We compete 
by trading, creating institutions and by creating impressive 
non-rivalrous goods. The fact that it is news when somebody cheats in 
business is evidence that it is a relatively rare phenomenon: most 
business is totally win-win. In nature, we find symbiosis noteworthy: it 
is rare, most organisms just eat each other. Humans, thanks to our 
minds, are able to construct better ways of handling scarce resources. 
Sometimes these systems break down, but we also invent ways of handling 
breakdowns (and breakdowns of the breakdown handling, and so on). As we 
become more advanced we become better at coordinating what needs to be 
coordinated, and this produces a very cooperative system.

To me, this suggests that when we meet an alien civilisation it might 
not be "nice" in any moral sense, but if it is a coordinated system we 
are likely to be able to game-theoretically interact in a fairly win-win 
way. In fact, meeting a space empire might be better than encountering 
the autarchic space nomads.

There is another wrinkle. If civs are far from each other, when they 
meet they will be old: they will essentially have figured out what can 
be figured out about physics and technology. Hence they will be equally 
matched tech-wise, and if their domains are large, at the meeting point 
the amount of local resources belonging to civ A within a certain radius 
will be equal to the amount belonging to B. So they will be perfectly 
matched in a conflict, if it breaks out. Worse, if A penetrates into B's 
domain, it will now have a convex region surrounded by B stuff, so it 
will potentially be at a disadvantage. So it seems (there is a tree of 
assumptions here, of course) that there is a strong incentive to either 
ignore the other or trade with it.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Thu Feb 21 16:38:34 2013
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 08:38:34 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Power satellite thoughts
Message-ID: 

This was written for another list.  There were interesting replies,
particularly on the Chinese media skepticism about the announcement of
cooperation with India, but I don't have permission to post them.

^^^^^^^^^^^

I have been talking about the Chinese being more likely to build power
satellites than anyone else for well over a year.  But the increasing
reality is still a shock

I sent the below to a former Chief of Naval Operations I met last
year.  He is retired and at Hoover now.

This is partly a cya so nobody can claim I kept this to myself instead
of trying to inform the US gov about it.

If any of you have other ideas about where it should go, please let me
know.  Can you think of any CIA types who might understand the
potential significance?

^^^^^^^^^^

A friend of mine who speaks Chinese has suggested we consult
with them on power satellites and laser propulsion.  I am still trying
to work though all the problems this might generate.  I certainly
don't want to wind up like Dr. Reece Roth.

I think it is strongly in the interest of the US for the Chinese to
build power satellites given the concerns about putting more CO2 in
the atmosphere.  But if they do it with propulsion lasers . . . .  I
am reluctant to ask for advice, but if you want to discuss it let me
know.

I think there is a good chance that the era of power satellite started
Nov. 2, 2012 with the Chinese announcement that they would
build power satellite in cooperation with India.  This came as a
complete surprise to the Indians and I don't think it is widely appreciated.

It's worth reading the news release:

http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2012-11-02/india/34877401_1_space-solar-power-space-collaboration-v-ponraj

^^^^^^^^^^^

China proposes space collaboration with India

BEIJING: China today rolled out a red carpet to "Missile man" and
ex-President APJ Abdul Kalam on his first visit to the country,
proposing a joint collaboration for a space solar power mission with
India and inviting him to teach at the prestigious Peking University
here.

In a surprise move, the China Academy of Space Technology (CAST), the
official body operating host of China's space missions as well as
satellite launches, invited Kalam to its headquarters where he was
given a "great reception" by the Chinese scientists.

Besides briefing the 82-year-old Kalam about its recent mission to
send three astronauts, including China's first woman to space, CAST
officials have shown "great interest" in partnering the mission with
international collaboration for Space based Solar Power initiative,
said V Ponraj, a scientist who is part of Kalam's delegation.

"Wu Yansheng, President of CAST has said his organisation is very much
interested to collaborate with India and ISRO on the space mission and
would like to establish a formal initiative from both the nations," he
said in a statement.

"Kalam assured, certainly he will take up this interest to the
Government of India and ISRO, so that a hard cooperation and
collaboration between ISRO, DRDO and CAST is realised on one of the
great mission, may be Space-based Solar Power initiative so that both
India and China can work for long term association with proper funding
along with other willing space faring nations to bring space solar
power to earth," the statement said.

"Such a mission will be a great example for the entire world and will
bring peace and prosperity to the both the nations as well as to the
world," it said.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Only three years ago we have this from CAST:

"The CAST SPS research team conceives that there are four imperative
sections for SPS development: launching approach, in-orbit
construction/multi-agents, high efficiency solar conversion and
wireless transmission. Except for launch, the other aspects do not
seem to be insurmountable issues for China in the upcoming years."

http://spacejournal.ohio.edu/issue16/ji.html

"Except for launch" indicates that three years ago they didn't have a
launch solution where power satellites made sense.

They may have figured out another way, but I suspect they are
intending to get the cost down with propulsion lasers in space (or
mirrors in space which is about the same thing).  In retrospect it's
kind of obvious.  The Chinese could have invented it themselves or
they could have been paying attention to my open source work.

Why involve India?

As Larry Niven said: "A reaction drive's efficiency as a weapon is in
direct proportion to its efficiency as a drive."  Propulsion lasers
are efficient and unavoidably weapons.  They obsolete virtually all
current military hardware.

India has the most reason to complain about the Chinese having
propulsion lasers, but if India jointly controls them, they won't and
the US will be out in the cold when/if they do it.  When the US
realizes they intend to solve energy and carbon in a way that
obsoletes our military hardware we will be stuck letting this happen
because the alternative is massive climate change.

Chinese government promises "whatever it takes" to cap coal use
Thu, 07 Feb, 2013 12:36 AM PST

"There is widespread fear that Chinese coal consumption, which nearly
rivals the entire rest of the world combined, will undo efforts to
combat climate change."

http://www.newstatesman.com/economics/2013/02/chinese-government-promises-whatever-it-takes-cap-coal-use

I suspect power satellites are their way to do it.

From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Feb 21 18:01:33 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:01:33 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: <5126045E.5080401@aleph.se>
References: 

 <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>

 <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net>
 <5123A089.8030604@aleph.se>

 <1361360727.93284.YahooMailNeo@web160502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <004d01ce0f81$bdca4270$395ec750$@rainier66.com>
 <5126045E.5080401@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 11:26 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> My answer was based on an observation Drexler made in one of the agorics
> papers. Yes, replicators soon run out of unclaimed resources and compete.
> But competition can be done in a lot of different ways. Humans do not just
> compete by stealing stuff or killing each other. We compete by trading,
> creating institutions and by creating impressive non-rivalrous goods. The
> fact that it is news when somebody cheats in business is evidence that it is
> a relatively rare phenomenon: most business is totally win-win. In nature,
> we find symbiosis noteworthy: it is rare, most organisms just eat each
> other. Humans, thanks to our minds, are able to construct better ways of
> handling scarce resources. Sometimes these systems break down, but we also
> invent ways of handling breakdowns (and breakdowns of the breakdown
> handling, and so on). As we become more advanced we become better at
> coordinating what needs to be coordinated, and this produces a very
> cooperative system.
>
> To me, this suggests that when we meet an alien civilisation it might not be
> "nice" in any moral sense, but if it is a coordinated system we are likely
> to be able to game-theoretically interact in a fairly win-win way. In fact,
> meeting a space empire might be better than encountering the autarchic space
> nomads.
>
> There is another wrinkle. If civs are far from each other, when they meet
> they will be old: they will essentially have figured out what can be figured
> out about physics and technology. Hence they will be equally matched
> tech-wise, and if their domains are large, at the meeting point the amount
> of local resources belonging to civ A within a certain radius will be equal
> to the amount belonging to B. So they will be perfectly matched in a
> conflict, if it breaks out. Worse, if A penetrates into B's domain, it will
> now have a convex region surrounded by B stuff, so it will potentially be at
> a disadvantage. So it seems (there is a tree of assumptions here, of course)
> that there is a strong incentive to either ignore the other or trade with
> it.
>
>

I think that when we discuss possible contact with alien civs we make
the big mistake of thinking that we will be in a Star Trek type
environment where our civ is basically cowboys with spaceships. :)

Humanity won't be like that after we go through the Singularity.  It
is difficult for writers to write about posthumans as their thinking
and motivations won't be the same as us in our present condition.
That's why people have great difficulty in considering possible
posthuman civs. They *want* them to be cowboys with spaceships and
laser guns.

We find the Great Silence to be unbelievable because if we were given
lightspeed spaceships now, we would immediately set about polluting
the galaxy. The thought that posthuman level civs might think that is
a bad idea just cannot be allowed. Perhaps the Singularity is going to
be a bigger change than anticipated.  ;)

BillK

From painlord2k at libero.it  Thu Feb 21 21:31:24 2013
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 22:31:24 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Experimental Null Test of Mach Effect
Message-ID: <5126922C.2040703@libero.it>

On NextBigFuture they had some news about a paper supporting Woodward
http://nextbigfuture.com/2013/02/experimental-null-test-of-mach-effect.html#comment-789771059

People like GoatGuy and other continue to write about the possibility to
go over c or build a perpetual motion machine when Woodward and other
physicists have already analyzed the published theory and found no weak
spots.

For example, they say "at a constant acceleration" the ship should go
over c in a finite amount of time.

First, the drive should give up a constant force, not a constant
acceleration. A big difference when the speed go from zero to near c.
A constant force will push against an increasing mass, reducing the
acceleration so speed will never reach c.

Then ,as the ship speed go up to c, the time inside the ship would slow
down, slowing down the oscillation of the mass (from an external
observer POV). At the same time, the length of the ship (on the
acceleration axis) should go to zero (from an external observer POV),
reducing the amplitude of the oscillation.

So we have at least two, maybe three effects reducing the force
developed by the drive as it accelerate near c.

The same is true when they talk about attaching the drive to a wheel to
produce energy. They simplify the effect to a simple force adding
constantly velocity and, at the end, producing more energy than it consume.
Unfortunately, for them, the effect is not a simple force but a
combination of two forces averaging and the rotation of the wheel have
effects on how the drive work. The two forces are no more on the same
vector an in opposition, but are on different vectors, so only a
fraction of the original force is developed. And faster the wheel spin
smaller is the actual tangential force and greater the radial force. At
some point the tangential force will go to zero and, if the rotation
speed go further up, start to work against the rotation.

But apparently these skeptics never bothered to counter these objections.

Any comment?

Mirco

From atymes at gmail.com  Thu Feb 21 22:09:13 2013
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 14:09:13 -0800
Subject: [ExI] Experimental Null Test of Mach Effect
In-Reply-To: <5126922C.2040703@libero.it>
References: <5126922C.2040703@libero.it>
Message-ID: 

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Mirco Romanato  wrote:
> But apparently these skeptics never bothered to counter these objections.
>
> Any comment?

People will make basic physics errors.  People very insistent on making
basic physics errors will continue to make them regardless of any and all
corrections offered, so at some point it becomes obvious that continuing
to disprove them is of no value.

Not that the proponents are right, just that continuing to debunk takes
time and energy that can be better spent examining theories that have a
much higher likelihood of being right, and whose proponents are more
interested in finding the truth than in the appearance of being correct.

(If one is highly concerned about seeming to be correct, one is often in
the wrong.  If one is not concerned about being found out to have
personally believed things that are not true, one is far more able to
eventually adjust one's beliefs to that which is true.)

From msd001 at gmail.com  Thu Feb 21 23:39:43 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Thu, 21 Feb 2013 18:39:43 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Where are they? was Re: 2^57885161-1
In-Reply-To: 
References: 

 <20130215103301.GI6172@leitl.org>

 <002d01ce0eb2$70dad440$52907cc0$@att.net>
 <5123A089.8030604@aleph.se>

 <1361360727.93284.YahooMailNeo@web160502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <004d01ce0f81$bdca4270$395ec750$@rainier66.com>
 <5126045E.5080401@aleph.se>

Message-ID: 

On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:01 PM, BillK  wrote:
> We find the Great Silence to be unbelievable because if we were given
> lightspeed spaceships now, we would immediately set about polluting
> the galaxy. The thought that posthuman level civs might think that is
> a bad idea just cannot be allowed. Perhaps the Singularity is going to
> be a bigger change than anticipated.  ;)

Makes me think of an answer such that the "singularity" reduces this
space-time to a fixed-location in a higher dimensional existence.  The
only way to move in that context is to keep your footprint in our
space-time at imperceptible (to us) signatures.  Something analogous
to aerodynamics in a vehicle: you're probably never going to see a
box-truck moving at 450kph.  Maybe these extra-dimensional
conversations are happening with so much intensity that we don't
notice them?  ex: how aware are you of the 60hz (US) vibration around
you?  How aware of it are you when the power is out?  Did you even
know about Schumann Resonances or if you are affected by them?  How
much of "natural" vibrations are called such simply because they've
always been in our environment and we (incorrectly) attribute them to
causes without really understanding underlying meaning in them?
Supposedly (what do *I* know?) birds navigate by detecting the earth's
magnetic field, cows also stand in north-south orientation unless
interference caused by power lines confuses that tendency.  I don't
know, this may be another bit of the subtlety lost by a too-quick
departure from our biological/evolutionary substrate to machines that
seem in many ways sufficient, but the trade-off might be to lose some
sensation of these yet-indeterminate environmental 'noises'    ...
then again, that might be why we aren't sensing the post-uploaded.

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Fri Feb 22 20:51:08 2013
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 12:51:08 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Experimental Null Test of Mach Effect
In-Reply-To: 
References: <5126922C.2040703@libero.it>

Message-ID: <1361566268.58956.YahooMailNeo@web126204.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

On Thursday, February 21, 2013 5:09 PM Adrian Tymes  wrote:

> On Thu, Feb 21, 2013 at 1:31 PM, Mirco Romanato  wrote:
>> But apparently these skeptics never bothered to counter these objections.
>>
>> Any comment?
>
> People will make basic physics errors.? People very insistent on making
> basic physics errors will continue to make them regardless of any and all
> corrections offered, so at some point it becomes obvious that continuing
> to disprove them is of no value.

I think a slighter deeper question to ask is why such errors are made in the first place. I think we're running against basic intuitions here -- here the basic intuition being about addition of something being linear (more in results in more out by the same amount) -- and it's not so much that the people are necessarily stupid, but just that it's difficult to overcome these basic intuitions. I think the same goes to explaining many other errors made, where the error seems persistent, cropping up across cultures and generations.
I also don't think debunking is always counterproductive. It more depends on the persons involved. But it comes down to personal preferences: how much effort do you want to put into debunking, how much does it matter to you? One of the most difficult things I've found in life, especially online, is to remain silent when someone makes a comment you know (okay, you believe you know -- but you believe you know in something more passionate than just a casual manner) to be dead wrong. For instance, I remained silent with your recent attack on me here. :)

Regards,

Dan

From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Sat Feb 23 01:26:52 2013
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 18:26:52 -0700
Subject: [ExI] How do we convince Richard Branson to donate/invest billions
 for anti-aging research?
Message-ID: 

How do we convince Richard Branson to donate/invest billions for anti-aging
research?  I keep on thinking this is a huge opportunity for us, if we can
only find people able to actually contact him, and then make a successful
pitch!

Ideas???

http://www.businessinsider.com/richard-branson-joins-giving-pledge-2013-2

John  : )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From kanzure at gmail.com  Sat Feb 23 01:48:32 2013
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 19:48:32 -0600
Subject: [ExI] How do we convince Richard Branson to donate/invest
 billions for anti-aging research?
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: 

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 7:26 PM, John Grigg wrote:

> How do we convince Richard Branson to donate/invest billions for
> anti-aging research?

I think I'll stick with Zuck, but thanks.

http://www.breakthroughprizeinlifesciences.org/

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From spike at rainier66.com  Sat Feb 23 04:28:24 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Fri, 22 Feb 2013 20:28:24 -0800
Subject: [ExI] luminosity
Message-ID: <001b01ce117e$388b5550$a9a1fff0$@rainier66.com>

Hey do you guys play Luminosity?  I don't even know how I got there, but I
suspect it somehow popped up while I was watching a video on Khan Academy.
I fear that everyone here has been doing Luminosity for years and I am so
not hip I am Mr. Burns discovering iced creams.  These games are a kick!

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From msd001 at gmail.com  Sat Feb 23 05:37:33 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 00:37:33 -0500
Subject: [ExI] luminosity
In-Reply-To: <001b01ce117e$388b5550$a9a1fff0$@rainier66.com>
References: <001b01ce117e$388b5550$a9a1fff0$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: 

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:28 PM, spike  wrote:
> Hey do you guys play Luminosity?  I don?t even know how I got there, but I
> suspect it somehow popped up while I was watching a video on Khan Academy.
> I fear that everyone here has been doing Luminosity for years and I am so
> not hip I am Mr. Burns discovering iced creams.  These games are a kick!

Perhaps no worse for you than any other games.  Playing them doesn't
make you smarter (as advertised) -  it makes you better at playing
their games.

I'm sure you could have found these, but... for your convenience:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumosity
vs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity

both are about brightness, one involves proven science.  :P

From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Sat Feb 23 08:56:29 2013
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 01:56:29 -0700
Subject: [ExI] How do we convince Richard Branson to donate/invest
 billions for anti-aging research?
In-Reply-To: 
References: 

Message-ID: 

Bryan Bishop wrote:
>I think I'll stick with Zuck, but thanks.

Does anyone else have input to give?  I sure hope so...

John  : )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Feb 23 10:16:25 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 10:16:25 +0000
Subject: [ExI] How do we convince Richard Branson to donate/invest
 billions for anti-aging research?
In-Reply-To: 
References: 

Message-ID: 

On Sat, Feb 23, 2013 at 8:56 AM, John Grigg  wrote:
> Does anyone else have input to give?  I sure hope so...
>
>

One of the 'problems' of being a billionaire is that they are
constantly subjected to people and organisations requesting donations.
There is a whole industry engaged in trying to obtain grants from
wealthy donors. So join the queue. :)

The good news is that Health is the major philanthropic interest of
Giving Pledge members. (They want to live longer, just like everyone
else). Branson includes Medical research and Health among his
philanthropic interests.

The not so good news is that members don't pledge to give their wealth
away *now*. Just sometime before their death. Though Zuck, Gates and
Buffet have started giving money to charitable causes already. Branson
said - quote - "when they take their wealth out of Virgin?s airline,
media and other holdings".

So the Giving Pledge is generally good news, I think. The best route
to encourage donations for causes that you support is to increase
publicity. The more news items and attention they get in the
mainstream press the better. This will encourage smaller donations as
well.

BillK

From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com  Sat Feb 23 14:32:33 2013
From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 06:32:33 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] How do we convince Richard Branson to donate/invest
	billions for anti-aging research?
In-Reply-To: 
References: 

Message-ID: <1361629953.11931.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

>________________________________
> From: John Grigg 
>To: ExI chat list  
>Sent: Saturday, February 23, 2013 12:56 AM
>Subject: Re: [ExI] How do we convince Richard Branson to donate/invest billions for anti-aging research?
>??
>
>Bryan Bishop wrote:
>>I think I'll stick with Zuck, but thanks.
>
>
>Does anyone else have input to give?? I sure hope so...

Well you could always launch a line of Virgin panties and sell them on the web. Then chances are he, or at least his attorneys, would come to you for?trademark infringement. Offer to settle out of court?provided that?you can negotiate with Barnson personally?and then?give him your elevator pitch during the?mediation period. It had better be a good pitch. ;-)
?
Stuart LaForge

"Ignorance is the curse of God; knowledge is the wing wherewith we fly to heaven." - William Shakespeare

From spike at rainier66.com  Sat Feb 23 15:17:31 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Sat, 23 Feb 2013 07:17:31 -0800
Subject: [ExI] luminosity
In-Reply-To: 
References: <001b01ce117e$388b5550$a9a1fff0$@rainier66.com>

Message-ID: <005101ce11d8$e7053790$b50fa6b0$@rainier66.com>

>... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
Subject: Re: [ExI] luminosity

On Fri, Feb 22, 2013 at 11:28 PM, spike  wrote:

>> ...Hey do you guys play Luminosity?  ...  These games are a kick!

Perhaps no worse for you than any other games.  Playing them doesn't make
you smarter (as advertised) -  it makes you better at playing their games...

Ja I ignored the usual advertising silliness.  This is an important point
however, since I am training my son in how to do well at standardized tests.
I was always good at that, and it caused the schools to waaaay overestimate
my intelligence.  There is a special technique involved, just as in any
sport.  A friend always gives me a Mensa desk calendar every year, with one
question of the day.  After a little practice, you definitely learn their
pace, how they ask questions.  I have been doing those for 14 years.  I
definitely got smarter at their tests.

>...I'm sure you could have found these, but... for your convenience:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lumosity
vs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminosity

both are about brightness, one involves proven science.  :P

_______________________________________________

Ja OK I missed the missing letter, thanks, Lumosity.   I feel smarter
already, thanks Mike.  {8^D  LUMOSITY it is you play.

I wonder if chess players would do better than others at that reproduce the
matrix game?  I got up to 10x10 in that, but could only sustain at 8x8.  I
managed 9x9s several times, but seldom messed up on 8x8 and couldn't do
10x10s more than twice in a row.

Anyway I had fun.

spike

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Sun Feb 24 13:24:20 2013
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 14:24:20 +0100
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <51220700.802@aleph.se>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On 18 February 2013 11:48, Anders Sandberg  wrote:

> See
>
> http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/18951395853/excuse-defenses-part-11-excuse-me
> (about halfway down) for a nice explanation. Including of why insanity
> rarely works as an excuse. Conversely, it is totally possible to be too
> unstable own a gun (say having severe personality disorders) and yet be
> legally sane.
>

It should however be taken into account that even though insanity defences
may work well in jury trials ("hey, everybody can see he is totally
nuts!"), the common law tradition, as enshrined in the McNaughton Rules, is
at least theoretically much more restrictive than their continental
equivalents.

For instance, the ability to organise a well-concocted conspiracy, to adopt
plans to avoid detection and/or capture, and to put them in place, should
in principle exclude under common-law criminally-relevant insanity, even if
you have a good-faith claim that the conspiracy was ordered by your
reptilians lords.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From spike at rainier66.com  Sun Feb 24 15:35:28 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 07:35:28 -0800
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: 
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

Message-ID: <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj

>.http://thecriminallawyer.tumblr.com/post/18951395853/excuse-defenses-part-
11-excuse-me
(about halfway down) for a nice explanation. Including of why insanity
rarely works as an excuse. Conversely, it is totally possible to be too
unstable own a gun (say having severe personality disorders) and yet be
legally sane. -- Stefano Vaj 

Ja.  If we presume to set up a number of different varieties of crazy, I can
see a hundred ways this whole notion could go seriously wrong.  In the US,
gun ownership and voting are considered constitutional rights for those who
have not been convicted of a felony.  In introducing a new category of those
whose gun rights are to be infringed, it seems logical to me that if anyone
is too crazy to have a gun, then they are definitely too crazy to vote.  

If they fail their background check to own a gun, then they are also too
crazy to work for me; I will not hire.  We are heading toward a requirement
for universal background checks for anyone wanting to buy a gun.  These I
favor, for there are a number of non-evil uses I can think of in providing
complete public access to everyone's arrest records and mental health
records.  I will start by revealing my own: I have never been arrested or
consulted a mental health professional.  There, see that didn't hurt a bit.

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From anders at aleph.se  Sun Feb 24 16:56:23 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 16:56:23 +0000
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: <512A4637.3010208@aleph.se>

Stefano, how does the insanity plea work in the continental law tradition?

On 24/02/2013 15:35, spike wrote:
>
> Ja. If we presume to set up a number of different varieties of crazy, 
> I can see a hundred ways this whole notion could go seriously wrong.  
> In the US, gun ownership and voting are considered constitutional 
> rights for those who have not been convicted of a felony.  In 
> introducing a new category of those whose gun rights are to be 
> infringed, it seems logical to me that if anyone is too crazy to have 
> a gun, then they are definitely too crazy to vote.

Not necessarily. First, the idea that felons do not have a right to vote 
is a local one - the UK is actually struggling with the European Court 
of Human Rights, which has judged that preventing prisoners from voting 
is a severe infringement of their rights. And I think one can make a 
good case that some people who have mental disorders yet should have the 
right to vote (should we prevent depressed or anorexics from voting?)

Being ill means that certain rights and obligations change, but they 
change in different ways depending on how the person is sick and in 
different ways from someone who is a criminal. Criminals are assumed to 
know right from wrong but choose to do wrong; mentally ill people might 
or might not have that ability - when they are locked up it is for very 
different reasons than criminals. I think the simple test of whether 
somebody might deserve a right is that they understand what it is and 
what it implies: sociopaths are actually too short-term and self-centred 
to have for example voting rights, while anorectics are perfectly normal 
in all domains except body image. Yes, this concept of rights also 
implies that a lot of stupid adults should not have voting rights, and 
that posthumans might have rights and obligations beyond ours.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From painlord2k at libero.it  Sun Feb 24 17:03:16 2013
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 18:03:16 +0100
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <512A47D4.1090701@libero.it>

Il 18/02/2013 03:09, spike ha scritto:

> During the current US debate on new gun laws, a question occurred to
> me.  Suppose we manage to pass a law which would prohibit those deemed
> mentally unstable from having a firearm.  If a crazy person was caught
> with a firearm, couldn?t she just plead insanity?  If that didn?t work
> and the judge declared her sane, couldn?t she then plead innocent of
> owning a gun while insane?

A law prohibiting someone from owning and carrying a firearm could only
be reasonable if the people affected are already deemed a danger for
themselves and others: usually these are violent criminals (usually
lacking self control) or unstable people (usually unable to self-control
or understanding the consequences of their actions) or some classes of
disabled like blinds.

If a mentally unstable person, already prevented from obtaining legally
a firearm, is able to obtain a firearm we must think:

1) he was sane enough to plan to breach the laws to obtain something
unlawful for him, so he must go to jail because he broke the law with
full will and understanding like any common criminal.

2) he was insane but able to obtain an illegal weapon, making him a very
present danger for anyone living near him. So he must be committed in an
asylum until the condition making him unstable is cured. Just the
compliance to the therapy must be always assured. If he is not compliant
with the therapy or the therapy is not effective, this is ground for
unlimited commitment, just like we would do with a lion unable to learn
not to roam and use the peasant as pastries.

Mirco

From spike at rainier66.com  Sun Feb 24 17:58:30 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 09:58:30 -0800
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <512A4637.3010208@aleph.se>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com> <512A4637.3010208@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <001f01ce12b8$8e354020$aa9fc060$@rainier66.com>

>. On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
Subject: Re: [ExI] insanity plea

Stefano, how does the insanity plea work in the continental law tradition?

On 24/02/2013 15:35, spike wrote:

Ja.  If we presume to set up a number of different varieties of crazy, I can
see a hundred ways this whole notion could go seriously wrong.  In the US,
gun ownership and voting are considered constitutional rights for those who
have not been convicted of a felony.  In introducing a new category of those
whose gun rights are to be infringed, it seems logical to me that if anyone
is too crazy to have a gun, then they are definitely too crazy to vote.  

>. And I think one can make a good case that some people who have mental
disorders yet should have the right to vote (should we prevent depressed or
anorexics from voting?)-- Anders Sandberg,

How about irrationally exuberant anorexics?  If depression is a mental
illness, and the opposite is elation, then elation is negative mental
illness, which would cancel the anorexia, and I should break even at least.

This whole thread really isn't about guns, but rather about some of the
implications of restricting gun ownership based on anything other than an
arrest record, such as mental health.  I hope to point out how dangerous is
the whole concept.

>. Criminals are assumed to know right from wrong but choose to do wrong;.

It is too easy to imagine voting rights being forbidden from all those who
know who is the right candidate but chose to vote for the other one.
Preventing the mentally ill from voting creates a new collection of
problems, for it assumes an objective means of determining who is too crazy
to vote.

Unrelated:  Anders I went up to Stanford yesterday to Cubberly Hall at 1000,
but it wasn't a transhumanist event.  Rather it was a string quartet.  The
1000 event was titled Hayden Makes You Smarter, a combination concert and
lecture on Hayden.  This was quite good and well worth the ride up there.
The event which looked like a transhumanist gathering, on bioethics, was at
1300 in Cubberly.  Was that the event that Natasha and your friend was
presenting?  Or did I have the wrong date, time or place?

spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From atymes at gmail.com  Sun Feb 24 18:16:00 2013
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:16:00 -0800
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: 

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 7:35 AM, spike  wrote:
> These I
> favor, for there are a number of non-evil uses I can think of in providing
> complete public access to everyone?s arrest records and mental health
> records.  I will start by revealing my own: I have never been arrested or
> consulted a mental health professional.  There, see that didn?t hurt a bit.

The problem comes in context, which is often lost in complex but legit
situations.  For instance:

* If you have been arrested for a crime you did not commit, were
exonerated by the court, and even got false arrest charges to stick
against the police...you were still arrested.  Likewise if you were in
the wrong time at the wrong place, and arrested because you
looked like someone who had committed a crime, then released
once they saw they had the wrong person...you were arrested.

* The criminally insane who cause problems, were not adequately
consulted by mental health professionals.  It is quite easy to imagine
that some of them were not consulted at all, and if they had been,
they would have been caught before they became dangerous.  So
never having been consulted like this could be seen as a sign of
potential mental instability: no relevant professional has given you a
clean bill of health.

In the interests of efficiency, many who check these kinds of things
only present a yes/no option (or refuse to hear anything but "yes" or
"no") when asking this.  This is why it is illegal for an employer, in
most cases, to ask about specific generalizations that society has
deemed irrelevant to most jobs - notably sex and religion.
(Exceptions exist where it is relevant, e.g. religion for a priest job.)

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Sun Feb 24 18:46:10 2013
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 10:46:10 -0800 (PST)
Subject: [ExI] Dennis Tito Planning Trip to Mars?
In-Reply-To: <1361731388.40246.YahooMailNeo@web126204.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
References: <1361731388.40246.YahooMailNeo@web126204.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1361731570.72321.YahooMailNeo@web126201.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>

http://www.space.com/19901-mars-space-tourism-dennis-tito.html

I think he's planning a trip to the Moon -- probably just a repeat of Apollo 8: going around the Moon and returning to Earth. My guess is this going to be a Russian mission. 

But a Mars trip is not impossible, especially if it's just a trip to swing around Mars and back to Earth. For that, one need only think about a long duration mission in space with the complications of landing and take off from Mars.

All of this said, I've never been terribly good at making predictions.

Regards,

Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From msd001 at gmail.com  Sun Feb 24 18:29:02 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:29:02 -0500
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: 

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 10:35 AM, spike  wrote:
> If they fail their background check to own a gun, then they are also too
> crazy to work for me; I will not hire.  We are heading toward a requirement
> for universal background checks for anyone wanting to buy a gun.  These I
> favor, for there are a number of non-evil uses I can think of in providing
> complete public access to everyone?s arrest records and mental health
> records.  I will start by revealing my own: I have never been arrested or
> consulted a mental health professional.  There, see that didn?t hurt a bit.

For the sake of devil's advocate:  Since your metal health has not
been documented by a professional, I consider it a suspect data point.
 In the face of this unknown, I am unwilling to hire you until you
_have_ consulted a mental health professional.  I further suggest you
see my quack doctor[1] rather than your own.

Public health records are a bad idea in our current state of biased
judgement.  We're too quick to snap to a conclusion about someone from
scraps of information without considering how relevant it is to the
situation for which we're hiring someone (for example)  I see
insufficient advantage to the individual for making his or her
information public, especially in light of the disadvantage it may
cause.

[1] in addition to the usual notion of a 'quack doctor' I'd like to
submit something like this as alternative:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubber_duck_debugging

From msd001 at gmail.com  Sun Feb 24 18:32:03 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:32:03 -0500
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <512A47D4.1090701@libero.it>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net>
 <512A47D4.1090701@libero.it>
Message-ID: 

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Mirco Romanato  wrote:
> compliance to the therapy must be always assured. If he is not compliant
> with the therapy or the therapy is not effective, this is ground for
> unlimited commitment, just like we would do with a lion unable to learn
> not to roam and use the peasant as pastries.

fwiw, I'll be looking for other usages for the expression "peasants as
pastries"  :)

From spike at rainier66.com  Sun Feb 24 20:08:35 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 12:08:35 -0800
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: 
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>

Message-ID: <005001ce12ca$ba735f20$2f5a1d60$@rainier66.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes

>...It is quite easy to imagine that some of them were not consulted at all,
and if they had been, they would have been caught before they became
dangerous... 

Ja agree sir, but you understate your case in an important way.  Just the
discussion of the possibility of restricting gun ownership to the mentally
ill would compel the mentally ill to refuse to seek treatment for fear that
they could lose the ability to purchase a firearm.  With that would soon
likely go their voting rights and any possibility of gainful employment.

>... So never having been consulted like this could be seen as a sign of
potential mental instability: no relevant professional has given you a clean
bill of health...

Ja.  This becomes really tricky.

>...  This is why it is illegal for an employer, in most cases, to ask about
specific generalizations that society has deemed irrelevant to most jobs -
notably sex and religion.
(Exceptions exist where it is relevant, e.g. religion for a priest job.)
Adrian

_______________________________________________

Some jobs just inherently require a particular gender, such as priests and
harlots, ja thanks.  

spike

From atymes at gmail.com  Sun Feb 24 21:55:39 2013
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 13:55:39 -0800
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <005001ce12ca$ba735f20$2f5a1d60$@rainier66.com>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>

 <005001ce12ca$ba735f20$2f5a1d60$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: 

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:08 PM, spike  wrote:
> Ja agree sir, but you understate your case in an important way.  Just the
> discussion of the possibility of restricting gun ownership to the mentally
> ill would compel the mentally ill to refuse to seek treatment for fear that
> they could lose the ability to purchase a firearm.  With that would soon
> likely go their voting rights and any possibility of gainful employment.

Indeed.  This is a core problem with many attempts to put certain other
people in a special negative class.  The average person can either be
classified - with no real benefit if the classification is correct, and huge
consequences if the classifier messes up - or not classified - in which
case it's the same as if they had a correct, positive classification.

Unsurprisingly, given a choice, most people prefer not to be classified
in this manner.  That's why people call for "privacy" and whatnot: they
want the benefit of the doubt, that they know must be extended to
most people (including the default unclassified) in order to legitimize
the negative classification.

From spike at rainier66.com  Sun Feb 24 23:26:21 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 15:26:21 -0800
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: 
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>

 <005001ce12ca$ba735f20$2f5a1d60$@rainier66.com>

Message-ID: <001101ce12e6$5b293b90$117bb2b0$@rainier66.com>

>... On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
Subject: Re: [ExI] insanity plea

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:08 PM, spike  wrote:
>>...Just 
> the discussion of the possibility of restricting gun ownership to the 
> mentally ill would compel the mentally ill to refuse to seek treatment 
> for fear that they could lose the ability to purchase a firearm.  With 
> that would soon likely go their voting rights and any possibility of
gainful employment.

>...Indeed.  This is a core problem with many attempts to put certain other
people in a special negative class.  The average person can either be
classified - with no real benefit if the classification is correct, and huge
consequences if the classifier messes up - or not classified - in which case
it's the same as if they had a correct, positive classification...
_______________________________________________

Something I have never heard of but should be available somewhere is the
option of mental health care with complete anonymity.  Could not a person
see a psychologist under an assumed identity?   This would not apply to a
psychiatrist who can deal out medications.  The patient would pay their
bills in cash and never tell the psychologist who they really are.  Does
something like that exist somewhere?  Seems like an obvious solution.  It
would free the patient to tell the psychologist anything, since they needn't
fear losing rights in the future.

spike

From painlord2k at libero.it  Mon Feb 25 01:23:39 2013
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:23:39 +0100
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: 
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net>
 <512A47D4.1090701@libero.it>

Message-ID: <512ABD1B.3000505@libero.it>

Il 24/02/2013 19:32, Mike Dougherty ha scritto:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:03 PM, Mirco Romanato  wrote:
>> compliance to the therapy must be always assured. If he is not compliant
>> with the therapy or the therapy is not effective, this is ground for
>> unlimited commitment, just like we would do with a lion unable to learn
>> not to roam and use the peasant as pastries.
> 
> fwiw, I'll be looking for other usages for the expression "peasants as
> pastries"  :)

In the last few days I just read the "Trolls of Troy" comics, maybe this
is the reason of this interesting choice of words.

http://www.askell.com/Troy/Trolls/Trolls.php

Mirco

From anders at aleph.se  Mon Feb 25 02:18:58 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:18:58 +0000
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <005001ce12ca$ba735f20$2f5a1d60$@rainier66.com>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>

 <005001ce12ca$ba735f20$2f5a1d60$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: <512ACA12.1090703@aleph.se>

On 24/02/2013 20:08, spike wrote:
> Ja agree sir, but you understate your case in an important way. Just 
> the discussion of the possibility of restricting gun ownership to the 
> mentally ill would compel the mentally ill to refuse to seek treatment 
> for fear that they could lose the ability to purchase a firearm. 

OK, maybe I am terribly European here, but that argument sounds pretty 
crazy to me. How many people regard their ability to buy guns more 
important than seeking treatment if they can?

I could be able to see it in regards to driver's licences, since not 
having one in the US is presumably severely handicapping, so presumably 
people would not seek treatment for disorders that would impair their 
ability to get one. How many people avoid having their epilepsy or bad 
eyesight diagnosed because of this? Surely some, but enough to be a 
serious problem?

>   This is a core problem with many attempts to put certain other
> people in a special negative class.  The average person can either be
> classified - with no real benefit if the classification is correct, and huge
> consequences if the classifier messes up - or not classified - in which
> case it's the same as if they had a correct, positive classification.

Discrimination happens when people are judged along irrelevant 
dimensions, for example by membership in some group that actually 
doesn't relate to the matter. When J.S. Mill defended the rights of 
women he pointed out that even if his opponents were right and women on 
average were mentally unfit for higher studies, that still did not work 
as a motivation for banning them from universities. Some women would no 
doubt be smart enough. Hence the group membership did not matter, only 
the actual individual level of smarts.

Whether somebody can handle a gun responsibly seems to be what really 
matters: if the new rules just say that people in the group "mentally 
disordered" cannot have guns, then they are discriminatory and wrong. 
But if they say that people that do have responsibility problems can't 
have guns, then they make sense.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University

From anders at aleph.se  Mon Feb 25 02:22:07 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 02:22:07 +0000
Subject: [ExI] My bad (Was: insanity plea)
In-Reply-To: <001f01ce12b8$8e354020$aa9fc060$@rainier66.com>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com> <512A4637.3010208@aleph.se>
 <001f01ce12b8$8e354020$aa9fc060$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: <512ACACF.90307@aleph.se>

On 24/02/2013 17:58, spike wrote:
> Unrelated:  Anders I went up to Stanford yesterday to Cubberly Hall at 1000, but it wasn't a transhumanist event.  Rather it was a string quartet.  The 1000 event was titled Hayden Makes You Smarter, a combination concert and lecture on Hayden.  This was quite good and well worth the ride up there.  The event which looked like a transhumanist gathering, on bioethics, was at 1300 in Cubberly.  Was that the event that Natasha and your friend was presenting?  Or did I have the wrong date, time or place?

Yes indeed. My bad. The event is apparently next month - I noticed that 
yesterday too, when I met Stuart here in Oxford and got a bit confused.

Happy you got some good Haydn, though.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From spike at rainier66.com  Mon Feb 25 03:29:04 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 19:29:04 -0800
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <512ACA12.1090703@aleph.se>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>

 <005001ce12ca$ba735f20$2f5a1d60$@rainier66.com> <512ACA12.1090703@aleph.se>
Message-ID: <000f01ce1308$43bb0840$cb3118c0$@rainier66.com>

>... On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
Subject: Re: [ExI] insanity plea

On 24/02/2013 20:08, spike wrote:
>>... Ja agree sir, but you understate your case in an important way. Just 
> the discussion of the possibility of restricting gun ownership to the 
> mentally ill would compel the mentally ill to refuse to seek treatment 
> for fear that they could lose the ability to purchase a firearm.

>...OK, maybe I am terribly European here, but that argument sounds pretty
crazy to me. How many people regard their ability to buy guns more important
than seeking treatment if they can?

Anders the small minority we really do want to disarm are exactly those who
would avoid psychiatric treatment because of the risk of future inability to
own firearms.  Probably most wouldn't really care that much, the ones who
are harmless.  But plenty of people already own firearms, I would guess
somewhere around half in the USA.  If it is illegal for the mentally ill to
buy firearms, what of the ones they already own?  If they purchased while
sane, then became crazy, are they required to sell?  If they are crazy, can
we trust them to do the background check correctly on the buyer?  Are the
crazy allowed to buy ammo?  If not, are they allowed to buy reloading
equipment?  If not, can two crazies get together and one own the reloading
gear and the other own the powder and lead?  So many questions.

Consider next the possibility of the infrastructure to do background checks
being used by landlords and employers.  If anyone may not buy a weapon for
any reason, I don't even need to know what it is, I don't want them.

All that being said, there is a potential here for a very rare consensus
across the political spectrum: propose gun-purchase background checks in
such a way that everyone's arrest records and mental health history is
available to everyone.  Anyone who is not found in those public records must
be assumed crazy or criminal.  The gun people would likely go for that.  If
the anti-gun people want background checks badly enough, they will go for it
too.  No sending in forms and waiting several days, it must be instant
gratification, look up the eligibility right away.  Otherwise the buyer just
goes elsewhere, to someone who will sell the weapon illegally.  Reasoning:
if someone may own a firearm legally, the buyer doesn't break any laws from
buying from a seller who does not do a background check; rather it is the
seller who takes the risk.  So, for background checks to be effective, they
must be an open database, available to everyone.  Deal!

>...I could be able to see it in regards to driver's licences, since not
having one in the US is presumably severely handicapping, so presumably
people would not seek treatment for disorders that would impair their
ability to get one...

True, this happens all the time.  If one has severe eyesight problems in
one's middle aged years when there is no requirement to take DMV eye tests
more than about once a decade, one would be better off not seeing an
optometrist, for fear they might contact the DMV to inform them this patient
cannot see.  The drivers' license cannot be risked: as you point out, in the
US, one is practically crippled without one.  We have a half-assed bus
system, but it is inadequate for most purposes, and will likely only get
worse in the future, much worse, as the bills come due for our past
indiscretions.

>...How many people avoid having their epilepsy or bad eyesight diagnosed
because of this? Surely some, but enough to be a serious problem?  Anders
Sandberg,

Hmmm, probably not a serious problem, but I know personally of three such
cases, two eyesight related and one epilepsy, where the patient is not
seeking treatment because of risk to the drivers' license.  It happens.  I
don't consider it a huge risk, but it is a non-zero risk.  Around where I
live, we don't really have all that many elderly drivers.  The Silicon
Valley isn't an ideal retirement spot for so many reasons; it really just
isn't geared for that.  It is for go-go get-rich-quick types, not really
very much to attract seniors.  It's crazy expensive, the traffic is nuts.
But my hometown where I grew up is terrifying, especially to motorcycle
riders, oy vey.  So many elderly there now, especially now that the space
center has mostly shut down and plenty of the old timers just stayed right
where they have lived for the past 50 years.  I know plenty like that.
Driving there is scary.

As with the anonymous psychology patient, it seems like we could set up
anonymous optometrist and an anonymous neurologist.  Hey, there's an idea
for all these doctors who do not want to work under the new US medical
system: open a shop which takes only cash, in exchange for a promise to not
ask who you are.

spike

From spike at rainier66.com  Mon Feb 25 03:44:24 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 19:44:24 -0800
Subject: [ExI] sanity and the future of stanford u,
	was:  RE:  My bad (Was: insanity plea)
Message-ID: <001001ce130a$67de5db0$379b1910$@rainier66.com>

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
Sent: Sunday, February 24, 2013 6:22 PM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: [ExI] My bad (Was: insanity plea)

On 24/02/2013 17:58, spike wrote:

Unrelated:  Anders I went up to Stanford yesterday to Cubberly Hall at 1000,
but it wasn't a transhumanist event.  Rather it was a string quartet.  Or
did I have the wrong date, time or place?

>.Yes indeed. My bad. The event is apparently next month - I noticed that
yesterday too, when I met Stuart here in Oxford and got a bit confused.

No harm done.  Negative harm done: benefit resulted from an error!  Reminds
me of evolution, the rare beneficial mutation.

>.Happy you got some good Haydn, though. Anders Sandberg

-- 

Me too!  I looove Stanford, that is the place to out-hang.  Lots of
interesting stuff going on there always.  I had forgotten how cool,
interesting and mathematical is Hayden.  In some ways he is the more
approachable Bach, warm, nice, still precise and profound, but huggable is
Hayden.

After the concert, while I was waiting around for the 1300 lecture, I walked
about and pondered the future of high-end universities like Stanford and
that other place across the way whose name often escapes me, Berk something
I think.  The online learning will have an enormous impact methinks.  I
would like to steer the thread from insanity to Stanford.

spike
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From stathisp at gmail.com  Mon Feb 25 04:54:42 2013
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 15:54:42 +1100
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <001101ce12e6$5b293b90$117bb2b0$@rainier66.com>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>

 <005001ce12ca$ba735f20$2f5a1d60$@rainier66.com>

 <001101ce12e6$5b293b90$117bb2b0$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: 

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 10:26 AM, spike  wrote:
>
>>... On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes
> Subject: Re: [ExI] insanity plea
>
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 12:08 PM, spike  wrote:
>>>...Just
>> the discussion of the possibility of restricting gun ownership to the
>> mentally ill would compel the mentally ill to refuse to seek treatment
>> for fear that they could lose the ability to purchase a firearm.  With
>> that would soon likely go their voting rights and any possibility of
> gainful employment.
>
>>...Indeed.  This is a core problem with many attempts to put certain other
> people in a special negative class.  The average person can either be
> classified - with no real benefit if the classification is correct, and huge
> consequences if the classifier messes up - or not classified - in which case
> it's the same as if they had a correct, positive classification...
> _______________________________________________
>
> Something I have never heard of but should be available somewhere is the
> option of mental health care with complete anonymity.  Could not a person
> see a psychologist under an assumed identity?   This would not apply to a
> psychiatrist who can deal out medications.  The patient would pay their
> bills in cash and never tell the psychologist who they really are.  Does
> something like that exist somewhere?  Seems like an obvious solution.  It
> would free the patient to tell the psychologist anything, since they needn't
> fear losing rights in the future.

It wouldn't work since apart from anything else, you need collateral
history to reliably make a diagnosis. A person could present as
perfectly well because they are hiding their symptoms, because their
symptoms are treated due to taking medication which they have recently
stopped, or because they have an episodic illness such as bipolar
disorder.

It's offensive to people with mental illnesses to make general rules
about them working or even owning guns. Every person is different, and
every person has a different level of risk.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

From spike at rainier66.com  Mon Feb 25 06:03:07 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Sun, 24 Feb 2013 22:03:07 -0800
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: 
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>

 <005001ce12ca$ba735f20$2f5a1d60$@rainier66.com>

 <001101ce12e6$5b293b90$117bb2b0$@rainier66.com>

Message-ID: <001e01ce131d$c8d00b60$5a702220$@rainier66.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stathis
Papaioannou
...
> _______________________________________________
>
>>... Something I have never heard of but should be available somewhere is 
> the option of mental health care with complete anonymity...

>...It wouldn't work since apart from anything else, you need collateral
history to reliably make a diagnosis. A person could present as perfectly
well because they are hiding their symptoms, because their symptoms are
treated due to taking medication which they have recently stopped, or
because they have an episodic illness such as bipolar disorder...

Ja.  This would require a patient who is highly motivated for a cure, which
would be evidenced by paying their own hard-earned as opposed to going for
medical insurance, who cannot be told of the treatment.  The patient would
need full access to her own medical records, complete.  Under the current
system, I don't know that we can get that.  I am not sure how that works.  I
am lucky that way: my own medical history is very simple.

>...It's offensive to people with mental illnesses to make general rules
about them working or even owning guns...

Ja, I agree, which is why I think the attempt to screen gun buyers based on
mental health is DOA.  The conviction record, as opposed to the mental
health record, is unambiguous, even if imperfect.  But that business of
expanding the categories of those not allowed to own guns is I think going
nowhere, because we don't know how to define mental illness or dangerous
individuals.  I can imagine a shooting hobbyist who knows every intimate
detail of every weapon must appear mentally ill to people who are not into
that sport.  But I can relate: I am a motorcycle hobbyist, and I remember
tiny details on plenty of bikes.  If the government began talking of
restricting my bikes, I would act pretty similarly to the way the gun crowd
is acting now.

>... Every person is different... Stathis Papaioannou

I'm not.

Point taken Stathis.  I was squirmy when the feds started talking about
restrictions based on mental health, which tends to equate mental illness
with criminality.  I don't like that a bit, and it is something with which I
have been struggling mightily, since I have a family member we recently had
to move into elder care for Alzheimers.  Think about it: the patients are
locked in there, no choice to leave, that represents an involuntary
confinement based on a mental illness.  But sometimes an AD patient has
hours in which they seem almost normal.  Yet they are confined against their
clearly stated will, everything they own is taken away, yet they never
committed any crime or broke any rules.  I don't like equating mental
illness with criminality.  

I can see the end of the road coming on the current US gun debate: no
change.  If any change at all, it will be something that doesn't mean
anything, like restricting "30 round clips."  Note: there is no such thing
as a 30-round clip.  A number of US lawmakers demonstrated that they were
writing legislation on a subject in which they didn't know basic definitions
such as the difference between a clip and a magazine.  One lawmaker was
questioned on what was this adjustable stock she was trying to outlaw, and
why did it make a gun more dangerous.  She didn't know, and couldn't offer a
description of an adjustable stock.

spike
_______________________________________________

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Feb 25 13:36:49 2013
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:36:49 +0100
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <512A4637.3010208@aleph.se>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>
 <512A4637.3010208@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On 24 February 2013 17:56, Anders Sandberg  wrote:

>  Stefano, how does the insanity plea work in the continental law
> tradition?
>

Traditionally, the McNaughton test is about whether the defendant did not
to know the nature and quality of the act he was doing; or, if he did know
it, that he did not know he was doing what was wrong.

I also understand that the test is still somewhat relevant in Australia,
Canada, England and Wales, Hong Kong, India, the Republic of Ireland, New
Zealand, Norway and most U.S. states with the exception of Idaho, Kansas,
Montana and Utah, with the important caveat that jury trials are especially
prone to either nullification or distortion on the basis of the perceived
specifics of each case.

The continental, "civil law", tradition is more varied, but while it may be
practically more severe, it bases insanity defences on the "inability to
understand and to will" or "to want". Both should be present, and the first
refer to the reality where the defendant lives, the second to his or her
ability to controle his impulses and stimuli.

One main difference is that in principle any rational planning related to
completion of the crime or the avoidance of criminal sanctions, or
fear/awareness expressed in connection with the latter (as in a famous
case, when a certified psychiatric patient was convicted because of his
saying when calling the police "I know I will hang for that"), would
automatically bar any insanity defence. In the second, not necessarily so,
because elaborate and even astute courses of action, or the realisation of
possibile criminal prosecution, are perfectly compatible, respectively,
with a largely hallucinatory reality or with the inability to resist to a
criminal impulse.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Feb 25 13:41:47 2013
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:41:47 +0100
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <512ACA12.1090703@aleph.se>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>

 <005001ce12ca$ba735f20$2f5a1d60$@rainier66.com>
 <512ACA12.1090703@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On 25 February 2013 03:18, Anders Sandberg  wrote:

> OK, maybe I am terribly European here, but that argument sounds pretty
> crazy to me. How many people regard their ability to buy guns more
> important than seeking treatment if they can?
>

I suspect several paranoids would. But, hey, they can seek a black-market
solution for either, ending up with eating their cake and having it to. :-)

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From anders at aleph.se  Mon Feb 25 14:12:41 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:12:41 +0000
Subject: [ExI] the future of stanford u
In-Reply-To: <001001ce130a$67de5db0$379b1910$@rainier66.com>
References: <001001ce130a$67de5db0$379b1910$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: <512B7159.5050503@aleph.se>

On 25/02/2013 03:44, spike wrote:
>
> Me too!  I looove Stanford, that is the place to out-hang.  Lots of 
> interesting stuff going on there always.  I had forgotten how cool, 
> interesting and mathematical is Hayden.  In some ways he is the more 
> approachable Bach, warm, nice, still precise and profound, but 
> huggable is Hayden.
>   
> After the concert, while I was waiting around for the 1300 lecture, I walked about and pondered the future of high-end
> universities like Stanford and that other place across the way whose name often escapes me, Berk something I think.
> The online learning will have an enormous impact methinks.  I would like to steer the thread from insanity to Stanford.

Yes, the future of universities is interesting. Why do we have them? 
There are several functions they do:

1. Teach stuff to people
2. Validate what they know, either absolutely or in relation to other 
students
3. Get people to interact and network
4. Help people grow as persons into autonomous, smart citizen-intellectuals
5. Do research

Online courses can do 1 and 2, up to a point. One reason a lot of people 
drop out is that they do require dedication and focus, and not everybody 
got it. At a physical university you have A) a social support system of 
friends, B) university staff trying to get students motivated or help 
them if they show signs of slipping, and C) a high threshold of entry 
that through cognitive dissonance and the sunk cost fallacy keeps people 
in - you don't want to have wasted all that college money, right? This 
is why I think online courses are a huge win for smart, young and 
ambitious people in simple circumstances, but they are not the solution 
for the average could-be student in those circumstances. Universities 
grab you better.

The third function is why campuses are important. People run into each 
other. There is a high concentration of smart, creative, and promising 
people: a lot of the old school ties will be really valuable later in 
life. People come up with business ideas or just learn how to deal with 
social life and its politics by participating in local organisations and 
networks. Oxford Union is not just a debating club: it is the debating 
club where a certain number of your fellows are going to become heads of 
state one day, and everybody knows it - so the internal politics will be 
a real test. The Oxford college structure makes students and faculty of 
different specialities at least have lunch and dinner together, and 
encourages socializing across discipline boundaries. These are things 
online courses will not have much advantage over, which is at least why 
Oxford and Cambridge are currently just ignoring them.

The fourth function is mysterious, and maybe more of wishful thinking 
than anything real.

The fifth function is somewhat decoupled from the others. Brilliant 
researchers are not on average better lecturers, but having access to 
people actually finding new knowledge means that universities will 
typically be more up to date than other institutions. Conversely, you 
want to have ready access to smart students to get involved in your 
research - in a sense the education part is just a constantly ongoing 
job fair for the researchers to exploit.

One reason to have universities is clustering. Most universities are 
clusters of institutions and companies that benefit from access to each 
other and people - Stanford and Silicon Valley is perhaps the most 
famous example. I think we will start to see online clustering where 
online services also network with other services for mutual benefit, but 
I don't know if they are going to be effective enough at retaining 
attention and people to become "real" clusters.

I also wonder about virtual research clusters. The same problem about 
keeping things together recurs, but one can use other means to hold them 
together (such as contracts). A cluster might outsource lab work or 
observational work, doing the cutting edge theory and analysis in-cluster.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From spike at rainier66.com  Mon Feb 25 14:45:52 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 06:45:52 -0800
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: 
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>

 <005001ce12ca$ba735f20$2f5a1d60$@rainier66.com> <512ACA12.1090703@aleph.se>

Message-ID: <003e01ce1366$cf769490$6e63bdb0$@rainier66.com>

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj
Subject: Re: [ExI] insanity plea

On 25 February 2013 03:18, Anders Sandberg  wrote:

>>.OK, maybe I am terribly European here, but that argument sounds pretty
crazy to me. How many people regard their ability to buy guns more important
than seeking treatment if they can?

>.I suspect several paranoids would. But, hey, they can seek a black-market
solution for either, ending up with eating their cake and having it to. :-)
-- 
Stefano Vaj 

Many points in one sentence, Stefano, thanks.  

Black market for guns: of course, it is already that way.  Passing more laws
regarding gun ownership is mostly useless because criminals are the ones we
don't want in possession of guns, but criminals don't follow laws.  

Regarding black market for health, an anonymous psychology clinic is not
black market, because they aren't dispensing medications.  I see no problem
here: we should have anonymous psychology clinics.  The idea is so obvious,
it must exist somewhere.

Regarding paranoids, what that is all about is that the US has this absurdly
outsized military establishment with aaallll thoooose guns and aaallll those
drones with missiles aboard and aaalll the nukes; it is a ferocious force
indeed.  It is controlled by the authority found in the constitution.  As
soon as a US government starts to do anything that looks like it might be
rattling the cage that defines its legal boundaries, then yes, it represents
danger to the US and the entire planet in the form of a vast powerful
military that could get loose, going forth under its own will, destroying
anything in its path.  What we have now is a government proposing to take
away citizens' constitutional rights based on mental health, in addition to
criminal activity.  But I see nothing in the constitution that would allow
that.  Ja, the yanks are watching that with a microscope.  We risk ending up
in a situation where the mentally ill lose their constitutional rights, and
mental illness is defined as anyone who questions the government's actions
based on constitutionality, and that awesome force of the US military is out
of control.

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From msd001 at gmail.com  Mon Feb 25 14:42:42 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 09:42:42 -0500
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <000f01ce1308$43bb0840$cb3118c0$@rainier66.com>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>

 <005001ce12ca$ba735f20$2f5a1d60$@rainier66.com>
 <512ACA12.1090703@aleph.se>
 <000f01ce1308$43bb0840$cb3118c0$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: 

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 10:29 PM, spike  wrote:
> As with the anonymous psychology patient, it seems like we could set up
> anonymous optometrist and an anonymous neurologist.  Hey, there's an idea
> for all these doctors who do not want to work under the new US medical
> system: open a shop which takes only cash, in exchange for a promise to not
> ask who you are.

Keep describing this dystopian future with a positive outlook.  It
doesn't make it any less dystopian, but it's good to be positive about
it.

I thought we were getting rid of cash due to the pesky untrackability
of cash.  Wasn't the goal to make your bank account public information
also?  That way we can be sure you aren't selling or buying drugs,
cheating on your spouse, or evading your tax responsibility.  Wait,
you don't want to make your bank transactions public record?  Then why
do you keep advocating public mental health database?

Can we at least agree that public records should notify the individual
before releasing the information?  Something like a 2-factor auth
where anyone can request the information, but I have to allow the
release so I am at least informed who/what is poking at my data?
Sure, I can deny the request and you can deny whatever service you
provide - but at least data miners aren't using this information as a
cheap "opt-in" for services you probably don't want.

From stefano.vaj at gmail.com  Mon Feb 25 16:49:21 2013
From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:49:21 +0100
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <003e01ce1366$cf769490$6e63bdb0$@rainier66.com>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>

 <005001ce12ca$ba735f20$2f5a1d60$@rainier66.com>
 <512ACA12.1090703@aleph.se>

 <003e01ce1366$cf769490$6e63bdb0$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: 

On 25 February 2013 15:45, spike  wrote:

> We risk ending up in a situation where the mentally ill lose their
> constitutional rights, and mental illness is defined as anyone who
> questions the government?s actions based on constitutionality, and that
> awesome force of the US military is out of control.
>

One wonders how much sense the rationale may still makes that possession of
plain-vanilla firearms (as opposed to real weapons, or just - say - swords,
or biochemical laboratories, or PCs), would actually increase citizens'
ability to resist and control their government and its military, especially
in the US.

But I share your view that mental illness is there even more likely than
elsewhere to be defined on the basis of social conformity, given the
puritanical idea that sinners are fundamentally sick.

-- 
Stefano Vaj
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From msd001 at gmail.com  Mon Feb 25 17:44:58 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:44:58 -0500
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <003e01ce1366$cf769490$6e63bdb0$@rainier66.com>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>

 <005001ce12ca$ba735f20$2f5a1d60$@rainier66.com>
 <512ACA12.1090703@aleph.se>

 <003e01ce1366$cf769490$6e63bdb0$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: 

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 9:45 AM, spike  wrote:
> criminal activity.  But I see nothing in the constitution that would allow
> that.  Ja, the yanks are watching that with a microscope.  We risk ending up
> in a situation where the mentally ill lose their constitutional rights, and
> mental illness is defined as anyone who questions the government?s actions
> based on constitutionality, and that awesome force of the US military is out
> of control.

How far do you think that goes?  You've already commented on having
the history of your communication archived.  You are here rousing
rabble.  You are using language that the Thought Police are sure to
intervene/correct.  Your anti-American hate speech indicates your
intention to forfeit the right to vote in the future.  Frankly, it's
thinkers-like-you who are responsible for every Bad Thing(tm) in the
world today.

hyperbolic? yes.  hopefully amusing though :)

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon Feb 25 18:49:20 2013
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 13:49:20 -0500
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <512A4637.3010208@aleph.se>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>
 <512A4637.3010208@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 Anders Sandberg  wrote:

> > Criminals are assumed to know right from wrong but choose to do wrong;
> mentally ill people might or might not have that ability
>

I don't understand what ability you're talking about. If you choose to do
wrong you either did it for a reason (bad genes or a bad environment or
both) or you did a bad thing for no reason whatsoever (a random quantum
fluctuation in your head). Neither possibility would matter to me in the
slightest if you were chasing me with a bloody ax, I don't care why you're
doing it I just want you to stop. And I think preventing things like that
is the only reason to have criminal law at all, and so in a logical world
that would leave no room whatsoever for the insanity defense. I'm not even
sure what "he couldn't help it" means, and even if it does means something
I don't care, I just want you to stop chasing me with that damn ax.

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From spike at rainier66.com  Mon Feb 25 20:49:24 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 12:49:24 -0800
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: 
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>

 <005001ce12ca$ba735f20$2f5a1d60$@rainier66.com> <512ACA12.1090703@aleph.se>
 <000f01ce1308$43bb0840$cb3118c0$@rainier66.com>

Message-ID: <009101ce1399$98e71c50$cab554f0$@rainier66.com>

>...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
Subject: Re: [ExI] insanity plea

On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 at 10:29 PM, spike  wrote:
>>... As with the anonymous psychology patient, it seems like we could set 
> up anonymous optometrist and an anonymous neurologist...

>...Keep describing this dystopian future with a positive outlook.  It
doesn't make it any less dystopian, but it's good to be positive about it...

Ja.  Irrational exuberance is better than no exuberance at all.

>...I thought we were getting rid of cash due to the pesky untrackability of
cash...

Hmmm, getting rid of cash has its difficulties.  There is a constant demand
for untraceable currency of some sort.

>...  Then why do you keep advocating public mental health database?

Actually it is just the opposite.  What I am doing is pointing out that
expanding the categories of those forbidden from having firearms will come
with a severe cost.  What I suspect is that when everyone thinks it over
carefully, those who advocated for background checks on weapons purchases
will be the ones who will end up fighting against it.  The first clue should
have been when it was proposed, the NRA immediately agreed it would be a
good idea.  That took a lot of people by surprise.

I don't think anyone's mental health records should be public domain.  The
mere act of talking about the possibility of forcing those into public
domain has done damage to collective mental health.  

Consider the recent case where a newspaper published the names and addresses
of local gun owners.  That information was collected by the government at
taxpayer expense, so it falls under FOIA requirements to hand it over to
anyone who wants it.  The published list was a guide for criminals.  It
shows which homes to break into while the owner is not home if the goal is
to steal guns, and which homes to break into when the homeowner is home, if
their main interest is to rape and murder the occupants safely.  There is a
perfect example of a database which should never have been collected.  It
risks the gun owners guns and the non-gun-owners lives.

This example also had the exact opposite effect than was intended, for the
newspaper publisher is a gun-control advocate.  The outcome however was to
create a poster-child example of why all proposals to register firearms must
be resisted: the information leaks, placing at risk both the armed and the
unarmed.

spike

From msd001 at gmail.com  Mon Feb 25 22:20:29 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 17:20:29 -0500
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <009101ce1399$98e71c50$cab554f0$@rainier66.com>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>

 <005001ce12ca$ba735f20$2f5a1d60$@rainier66.com>
 <512ACA12.1090703@aleph.se>
 <000f01ce1308$43bb0840$cb3118c0$@rainier66.com>

 <009101ce1399$98e71c50$cab554f0$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: 

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:49 PM, spike  wrote:
>>...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
>>...  Then why do you keep advocating public mental health database?
>
> Actually it is just the opposite.  What I am doing is pointing out that
> expanding the categories of those forbidden from having firearms will come
> with a severe cost.  What I suspect is that when everyone thinks it over

ah.  fwiw, my earlier suggestion re: anti-American hate speech/et al.
was also not meant to be taken seriously.

From spike at rainier66.com  Mon Feb 25 22:41:21 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Mon, 25 Feb 2013 14:41:21 -0800
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: 
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>

 <005001ce12ca$ba735f20$2f5a1d60$@rainier66.com> <512ACA12.1090703@aleph.se>
 <000f01ce1308$43bb0840$cb3118c0$@rainier66.com>

 <009101ce1399$98e71c50$cab554f0$@rainier66.com>

Message-ID: <00c501ce13a9$3c483910$b4d8ab30$@rainier66.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2013 2:20 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] insanity plea

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 3:49 PM, spike  wrote:
>>...On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
>>...  Then why do you keep advocating public mental health database?
>
>>... Actually it is just the opposite.  What I am doing is pointing out 
> that expanding the categories of those forbidden from having firearms 
> will come with a severe cost...

>...ah.  fwiw, my earlier suggestion re: anti-American hate speech/et al.
was also not meant to be taken seriously.
_______________________________________________

Got it.  I interpreted it as parody.  I only do pro-American like speech.
spike

From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Feb 26 00:46:57 2013
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:46:57 +1100
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: 
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com> <512A4637.3010208@aleph.se>

Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 5:49 AM, John Clark  wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 Anders Sandberg  wrote:
>
>>
>> > Criminals are assumed to know right from wrong but choose to do wrong;
>> > mentally ill people might or might not have that ability
>
>
> I don't understand what ability you're talking about. If you choose to do
> wrong you either did it for a reason (bad genes or a bad environment or
> both) or you did a bad thing for no reason whatsoever (a random quantum
> fluctuation in your head). Neither possibility would matter to me in the
> slightest if you were chasing me with a bloody ax, I don't care why you're
> doing it I just want you to stop. And I think preventing things like that is
> the only reason to have criminal law at all, and so in a logical world that
> would leave no room whatsoever for the insanity defense. I'm not even sure
> what "he couldn't help it" means, and even if it does means something I
> don't care, I just want you to stop chasing me with that damn ax.

There is no point in punishment if perpetrators and potential
perpetrators aren't going to change their behaviour. If you're
thinking of murdering someone to take their money the thought of being
punished may deter you, and even if it doesn't, your punishment after
the fact may deter other murderers. But if you have no control over
what you do, because for example you are driven by command auditory
hallucinations, then fear of the consequences won't stop you acting,
nor will it stop anyone else acting who gets the same illness as you
do. It may still be appropriate to detain you at least until you are
no longer dangerous, but punishing you would be useless.

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Tue Feb 26 16:39:16 2013
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 11:39:16 -0500
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: 
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>
 <512A4637.3010208@aleph.se>

Message-ID: 

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013  Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:

> There is no point in punishment if perpetrators and potential
> perpetrators aren't going to change their behaviour.
>

But no matter how crazy somebody is you can ALWAYS change their behavior.
Imprisoning them will change their behavior, at the very least their prey
population will become quite different. And if a bullet is placed in their
brain their behavior will change even more.

> If you're thinking of murdering someone to take their money the thought
> of being punished may deter you,

Yes, and that is because few crazy people are infinitely crazy, although I
admit that some are.

> and even if it doesn't, your punishment after the fact may deter other
> murderers

Also true, and if the person being punished is crazy it will in no way
limit the deterrent effect that punishment has on others.

> > if you have no control over what you do, because [...]

If you have no control over what you do (and I'm not entirely sure what if
anything that means) then there are only 2 possibilities:

1) You did it because you had bad genes or had a bad environment or had
both.

2) There might not be a "because" involved at all. It might be that no
reason caused you to do it but you did it nevertheless, in other words it
was random. In physics things like that are called random quantum
fluctuations and have been detected in the lab. It is not known if such
small random changes in the brain can lead to macroscopic changes in
behavior, but it is conceivable that they can. Nor is it known if some
brains are more susceptible to such quantum fluctuations than others, but
again it is conceivable that some are.

As far as the law is concerned I don't see how it matters in the slightest
which of those 2 possibilities is true.

> for example you are driven by command auditory hallucinations, then fear
> of the consequences won't stop you acting,

It might stop some loonies because most crazy people, even most very crazy
people, are only finitely crazy.

> nor will it stop anyone else acting who gets the same illness as you do.
>

But it will deter those who don't have that illness.

 John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Tue Feb 26 19:25:46 2013
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 14:25:46 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Eric Drexler's new book is out on May 7
Message-ID: 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2013/02/26/nanotechnologys-civilization-changing-revolutionary-next-phase/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From anders at aleph.se  Tue Feb 26 23:33:25 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:33:25 +0000
Subject: [ExI] Eric Drexler's new book is out on May 7
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: <512D4645.4070907@aleph.se>

On 26/02/2013 19:25, John Clark wrote:
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2013/02/26/nanotechnologys-civilization-changing-revolutionary-next-phase/

He is rather terse in the interview - the poor reporter is asking fluffy 
questions and getting dense pieces back :-)

It is fun to see outside news of books that have been emerging around 
the office. I was just checking alternative covers for Nick's book on 
superintelligence earlier today; that one will be later this year. And 
no, I have not read either in full.

(my involvement has been largely delaying them by time-wasting talking :-)

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University

From anders at aleph.se  Tue Feb 26 23:53:07 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 23:53:07 +0000
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: 
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com> <512A4637.3010208@aleph.se>

Message-ID: <512D4AE3.9020304@aleph.se>

On 26/02/2013 16:39, John Clark wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2013  Stathis Papaioannou  > wrote:
>
>     > There is no point in punishment if perpetrators and potential
>     perpetrators aren't going to change their behaviour.
>
>
> But no matter how crazy somebody is you can ALWAYS change their 
> behavior. Imprisoning them will change their behavior, at the very 
> least their prey population will become quite different. And if a 
> bullet is placed in their brain their behavior will change even more.

The point of punishment is manifold. Check 
outhttp://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=60 and onwards for a nice overview from 
a legal perspective. Some rather interesting points about the failure of 
deterrence.

Looking at the list, rehabilitation and deterrence depend on learning. 
Removal/prevention is all about just preventing certain actions. 
Retaliation is more about inducing certain states in other people. 
Ethicists might discuss the justice aspect of retribution endlessly, but 
one key aspect is that the target is a moral agent: it is not fair to 
punish people who could not do otherwise or did not have an 
understanding of what they did, so by virtue of them being moral agents 
they also need to have some sort of learning (otherwise they would not 
be moral agents in the first place).

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From anders at aleph.se  Wed Feb 27 00:12:10 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 00:12:10 +0000
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: 
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com> <512A4637.3010208@aleph.se>

Message-ID: <512D4F5A.4010008@aleph.se>

On 25/02/2013 18:49, John Clark wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 24, 2013 Anders Sandberg  > wrote:
>
>     > Criminals are assumed to know right from wrong but choose to do
>     wrong; mentally ill people might or might not have that ability
>
>
> I don't understand what ability you're talking about. If you choose to 
> do wrong you either did it for a reason (bad genes or a bad 
> environment or both) or you did a bad thing for no reason whatsoever 
> (a random quantum fluctuation in your head). Neither possibility would 
> matter to me in the slightest if you were chasing me with a bloody ax, 
> I don't care why you're doing it I just want you to stop.

We are not talking about the ax-chase part, but what happens once I get 
caught by the police and/or doctors.

If I was chasing after you because you owed me money, then it is a 
matter for the justice system: I had a reason, I was aware that I could 
harm you and that this was against the law and common decency (even 
though the debt might have been big). I choose (using the neural 
mechanisms of action selection in my brain) to use the ax instead of 
sending lawyers after you. I had a choice: humans in this kind of 
situation can and do use non-violent means to get their money.

If I was chasing after you because I believed that you were a leprechaun 
who stole my name, then that is evidence that my reality checking is 
broken and it is a matter for the hospital. Nobody says that delusional 
people have a real choice (they do not update their beliefs when given 
clear evidence against them).

> And I think preventing things like that is the only reason to have 
> criminal law at all, and so in a logical world that would leave no 
> room whatsoever for the insanity defense.

See my other recent post: you might disagree, but people actually have a 
lot of other reasons for criminal law. And many of these make the 
insanity defence totally sensible. (But it is not applicable to that 
many crimes.)

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Oxford Martin School
Faculty of Philosophy
Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From spike at rainier66.com  Wed Feb 27 03:04:58 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 19:04:58 -0800
Subject: [ExI] then, hilarity ensued
Message-ID: <00dd01ce1497$3a8cdb50$afa691f0$@rainier66.com>

Do forgive me please, this has nothing to do with transhumanism, it is completely off topic, I spank myself.  I laughed so hard at this video, I just couldn?t refrain from posting:

http://weaselzippers.us/2013/02/25/video-women-take-joe-bidens-shotgun-advice-hilarity-ensues/

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From hartreef at concentric.net  Wed Feb 27 00:34:05 2013
From: hartreef at concentric.net (Kyle Webb)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 18:34:05 -0600 (CST)
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>

 <005001ce12ca$ba735f20$2f5a1d60$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: <20130227003405.3FC3B32A@victory.cnc.net>

---- Anders Sandberg wrote:
>
> On 24/02/2013 20:08, spike wrote:
> > Ja agree sir, but you understate your case in an important way. Just 
> > the discussion of the possibility of restricting gun ownership to the 
> > mentally ill would compel the mentally ill to refuse to seek treatment 
> > for fear that they could lose the ability to purchase a firearm. 
> 
> OK, maybe I am terribly European here, but that argument sounds pretty 
> crazy to me. How many people regard their ability to buy guns more 
> important than seeking treatment if they can?

(Longtime lurker putting his 2 cents here.)

Actually, I know someone who did exactly that. He definitely needed help, but didn't go for it because he knew that here in Illinois, it would likely get his FOID (firearms owner's ID. required to own a firearm here in Illinois) suspended. Now, he ultimately was involuntarily given a psych evaluation, and denied (correctly, IMHO), but it definitely stopped him going to seek help for himself.

In the case of those who are mentally ill and guns, a case can be made on both sides. 

A siilar and IMHO more reasonable example of that kind of effect is of commercial pilots here in the US until recently. Quite a number were knowingly flying with depression problems, as they knew that seeking help, or getting a prescription for SSRIs would take them off of flight status (thus depriving them of livelihood, etc.)

Personally, I'd much rather have a pilot under professional treatment than one trying to tough it out from fear of an automatic disqualification.

Obviously, in both examples, a decision will have to be made, but I'd prefer a decision made by an independent professional, rather than an individual making it for themselves in a possibly disturbed state.

Kyle Webb

From spike at rainier66.com  Wed Feb 27 04:27:40 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:27:40 -0800
Subject: [ExI] we aren't the world
Message-ID: <00f401ce14a2$c8383f70$58a8be50$@rainier66.com>

This is a long article, but the interesting part of it is stated in the
first four or five paragraphs:

http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/joe-henrich-weir
d-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/

The game goes like this:  a test subject is given 100 bucks.  She must offer
some of it to a second player, any amount she chooses.  If the second player
accepts, they second player gets the amount offered and the first gets
whatever is left.  If the second player refuses, then both players get
nothing.

What a cool game!

The article tells of Americans and their typical way of playing, the way I
would play under those circumstances: offer the second player 50 bucks.
Good chance she would take it and we both get 50.  But if I am the second
player and some greedy bastard offers me 40, I might gently explain where to
stuff her 60 bucks.

In any case, I never would have guessed it: an entire population was found
who play the game far differently.  In this ultimatum game, the Peruvian
first players would typically offer way less, and the second players would
usually accept.  Fascinating!  I never thought about it, but it explains why
we have soooo many lawyers in the US.

Europeans among us, how would you play that game?  If I offered you 40,
would you take it?

I thought of a cool experiment: we get some number of players, each kick in
100 bucks.  Then each player gets to be the first player once and the second
player once.  Every pair of players gets to negotiate anonymously online, so
an annoyed loser will never come to your office and whoop your ass.  It
would be a zero sum game: in those cases where there was a refusal, the 100
bucks would go into a pot which would be divided evenly among the players
after everyone has played their two rounds.  When you are the first player
and you draw a wimp and you play aggressively, you might get 60, then the
next round some fair-minded soul offers you 50 which you accept, so now you
are at 110 plus perhaps another 20 to 30 bucks as your share from the
hotheads who couldn't negotiate their way out of a wet paper sack.

COOL!  

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From brent.allsop at canonizer.com  Wed Feb 27 04:46:25 2013
From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:46:25 -0700
Subject: [ExI] we aren't the world
In-Reply-To: <00f401ce14a2$c8383f70$58a8be50$@rainier66.com>
References: <00f401ce14a2$c8383f70$58a8be50$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: <512D8FA1.8000901@canonizer.com>

Spike,

Interesting piece.  If I was the first player, I would always offer an 
even 50/50 split.  But if I was the one that received an offer of even 
the smallest possible amount, I would still accept it.

But a personal belief of mine probably has significant effect on the way 
I behave in any such cases.  This belief is that some day perfect 
justice for all will be achieved.  In other words, if a dude offered me 
$1, and wanted to keep $99, and if I accepted.  In heaven, the future, 
he would have to make a restitution, to make things fair, and pay me 
back, including interest.  If that is deemed by future Gods, to be just, 
anyway.  If not, then I wouldn't care anyway.  In other words, I believe 
in building up rewards in heaven, by doing such give of myself to others 
as much as possible way.  And my kids are going to owe me big time for 
creating them!

What does everyone else think about such, and what choices would you make?

Brent Allsop

On 2/26/2013 9:27 PM, spike wrote:
>
> This is a long article, but the interesting part of it is stated in 
> the first four or five paragraphs:
>
> http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/
>
> The game goes like this:  a test subject is given 100 bucks.  She must 
> offer some of it to a second player, any amount she chooses.  If the 
> second player accepts, they second player gets the amount offered and 
> the first gets whatever is left.  If the second player refuses, then 
> both players get nothing.
>
> What a cool game!
>
> The article tells of Americans and their typical way of playing, the 
> way I would play under those circumstances: offer the second player 50 
> bucks.  Good chance she would take it and we both get 50.  But if I am 
> the second player and some greedy bastard offers me 40, I might gently 
> explain where to stuff her 60 bucks.
>
> In any case, I never would have guessed it: an entire population was 
> found who play the game far differently.  In this ultimatum game, the 
> Peruvian first players would typically offer way less, and the second 
> players would usually accept.  Fascinating!  I never thought about it, 
> but it explains why we have soooo many lawyers in the US.
>
> Europeans among us, how would you play that game?  If I offered you 
> 40, would you take it?
>
> I thought of a cool experiment: we get some number of players, each 
> kick in 100 bucks.  Then each player gets to be the first player once 
> and the second player once. Every pair of players gets to negotiate 
> anonymously online, so an annoyed loser will never come to your office 
> and whoop your ass.  It would be a zero sum game: in those cases where 
> there was a refusal, the 100 bucks would go into a pot which would be 
> divided evenly among the players after everyone has played their two 
> rounds.  When you are the first player and you draw a wimp and you 
> play aggressively, you might get 60, then the next round some 
> fair-minded soul offers you 50 which you accept, so now you are at 110 
> plus perhaps another 20 to 30 bucks as your share from the hotheads 
> who couldn't negotiate their way out of a wet paper sack.
>
> COOL!
>
> 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 spike at rainier66.com  Wed Feb 27 04:55:52 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 20:55:52 -0800
Subject: [ExI] we aren't the world
In-Reply-To: <00f401ce14a2$c8383f70$58a8be50$@rainier66.com>
References: <00f401ce14a2$c8383f70$58a8be50$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: <00ff01ce14a6$b84f3b50$28edb1f0$@rainier66.com>

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike
.

>.The game goes like this:  a test subject is given 100 bucks.  She must
offer some of it to a second player, any amount she chooses.  If the second
player accepts, they second player gets the amount offered and the first
gets whatever is left.  If the second player refuses, then both players get
nothing.I thought of a cool experiment: we get some number of players, each
kick in 100 bucks.  Then each player gets to be the first player once and
the second player once.  Every pair of players gets to negotiate anonymously
online, so an annoyed loser will never come to your office and whoop your
ass.COOL!  Spike

OK cool, here's my game.  You arrange an Ultimatum match in the following
way: anyone who wants to play buys two tickets, a first player and a second
player, a hundred bucks for the pair.  No one introduces herself or reveals
any names, so the players are unknown.  Half the tickets are sold in one
location and half in the other.  Now when we get about 10 players in each
location, we have collected 2000 bucks and we are ready to play.

A player comes into location A at some random time, and chooses a position,
1 or 2.  If there is someone available at the other location with the
opposite position ticket, they can play, neither player knowing who the
other person is.  It might be your boss!  But she doesn't know who you are,
so the anonymity frees up the negotiation process, and allows them to shout
obscenities at each other in all caps if they want.  

The interesting part of this game is that if you play nice, you will
probably at least break even: you offer 50 bucks as the player 1, take 40 as
the player 2, and good chance at least 2 of the negotiations will break
down, perhaps more, so you get your other 10 bucks from the 200 in the pot
divided 20 ways.  The players negotiate with anonymity, but everyone gets a
hard copy of the transcript without identities after the fact, as a study
guide for negotiations.

Is there a way we could experiment with this somehow?  Some of you
realtime-chat hipsters, how could we set up a chat session to play this from
home and somehow echo this off a remote site to negotiate realtime and
insure anonymity?  A lot of us have known each other for a long time: it
would be fun to play for smaller stakes, say 10 bucks for the ticket pair,
and see if we can figure out who wrote what.  We could try to spoof the
group, acting like each other, using a known person's characteristic quirky
sayings.  For instance, if someone offers Anders 4 bucks, he might write "4
bucks, you greedy bastard, I aughta come to the next extro-schmooze and give
you a whoopin!  }8-[ No deal, we both go hungry! " trying to fool us into
thinking I wrote that.

That would be a totally hilarious kick!

{8^D

As an experiment, how could we set up a play money version?  As a second
experiment, how could we set up a version where the identities of the
players are revealed after all the "money" is transferred?  Would the
anonymous version differ from the ID open after the match version?  We could
recruit roommates and office colleagues who are unknown to us,  in order to
further confuse the issue.  Cool!

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From spike at rainier66.com  Wed Feb 27 05:14:13 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2013 21:14:13 -0800
Subject: [ExI] we aren't the world
In-Reply-To: <512D8FA1.8000901@canonizer.com>
References: <00f401ce14a2$c8383f70$58a8be50$@rainier66.com>
 <512D8FA1.8000901@canonizer.com>
Message-ID: <010d01ce14a9$48846db0$d98d4910$@rainier66.com>

From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Brent Allsop
Sent: Tuesday, February 26, 2013 8:46 PM
To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
Subject: Re: [ExI] we aren't the world

Spike,

>.Interesting piece.  If I was the first player, I would always offer an
even 50/50 split.  But if I was the one that received an offer of even the
smallest possible amount, I would still accept it.if a dude offered me $1,
and wanted to keep $99, and if I accepted.  In heaven, the future, he would
have to make a restitution, to make things fair, and pay me back.What does
everyone else think about such, and what choices would you make?  Brent
Allsop

Brent, you are too nice.  Tell you what pal, do allow me Player-1 you.  You
are my kind of player 2. 

If nothing else, we should be able to come up with a great video game, where
you can do all these things, and choose Duke Nukem as your heavenly avatar
for instance.  It seems like this should be possible: you can play chess
online anonymously, why not Ultimatum?

The answer to your question depends on if that version of heaven allows me
to find the greedy bastard and give him an ass-whooping.  That would be fair
interest in the sweet by and by, for his offering me 1 dollar.  If that
version of heaven requires everyone to be nice, then I want to get into a
higher level of heaven where I can go all Duke Nukem on reprehensible
deadbeat.  If that guy is in a lower level of heaven for his avarice, then I
want the option of going down there, giving him a whooping, then coming back
up.  Once I thrash him, only then will I forgive and forget, and be nice
like all the other gentle harp-playing cloud-jockeys up there.

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From anders at aleph.se  Wed Feb 27 09:14:01 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 09:14:01 +0000
Subject: [ExI] we aren't the world
In-Reply-To: <00f401ce14a2$c8383f70$58a8be50$@rainier66.com>
References: <00f401ce14a2$c8383f70$58a8be50$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: <512DCE59.1080300@aleph.se>

On 27/02/2013 04:27, spike wrote:
>
> This is a long article, but the interesting part of it is stated in 
> the first four or five paragraphs:
>
> http://www.psmag.com/magazines/pacific-standard-cover-story/joe-henrich-weird-ultimatum-game-shaking-up-psychology-economics-53135/
>

The general finding is important, though: white male right-handed 
medical/psychology students might not be representative, yet they are 
the white lab rats of much of cognitive science. Of course, the white 
lab rats are not terribly normal either, when compared to the wild type...

> In any case, I never would have guessed it: an entire population was 
> found who play the game far differently.  In this ultimatum game, the 
> Peruvian first players would typically offer way less, and the second 
> players would usually accept.  Fascinating!  I never thought about it, 
> but it explains why we have soooo many lawyers in the US.
>
> Europeans among us, how would you play that game?  If I offered you 
> 40, would you take it?
>

Probably. It depends a bit on who I think I am playing with.

I participated in a radio program where we had an entire pub doing it, 
and we got people who both accepted 1 (typical business student 
thinking) and people who rejected anything below 50. But again, the 
educated philosophy-interested public is not particularly normal. In 
particular, when asked they had clearly overthought their choices in 
complicated ways. So I would offering less to business people and 
willing to accept less from them, while increasing things when I thought 
I was dealing with more emotional and less game-theoretic westerners.

The real fun starts, IMHO, when you give people a sniff of oxytocin. 
Then people become more generous:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001128
There is a lot of research about how oxytocin changes people's altruism, 
generosity and willingness to punish defectors - and in-group favoritism 
- in economic games.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From andymck35 at gmail.com  Wed Feb 27 11:06:46 2013
From: andymck35 at gmail.com (Andrew Mckee)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 00:06:46 +1300
Subject: [ExI] Eric Drexler's new book is out on May 7
In-Reply-To: 
References: 
Message-ID: 

On Wed, 27 Feb 2013 08:25:46 +1300, John Clark  wrote:

> http://www.forbes.com/sites/brucedorminey/2013/02/26/nanotechnologys-civilization-changing-revolutionary-next-phase/

Is there a betting pool going on how many decades will pass before APM sees the light of day? ;-)

From eugen at leitl.org  Wed Feb 27 12:42:28 2013
From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:42:28 +0100
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <009101ce1399$98e71c50$cab554f0$@rainier66.com>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>

 <005001ce12ca$ba735f20$2f5a1d60$@rainier66.com> <512ACA12.1090703@aleph.se>
 <000f01ce1308$43bb0840$cb3118c0$@rainier66.com>

 <009101ce1399$98e71c50$cab554f0$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: <20130227124228.GT6172@leitl.org>

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:49:24PM -0800, spike wrote:

> >...Keep describing this dystopian future with a positive outlook.  It
> doesn't make it any less dystopian, but it's good to be positive about it...
> 
> Ja.  Irrational exuberance is better than no exuberance at all.

Not if if it leads to complete loss of your retirement fund.

Or, even worse, if you plan on business as usual, while the reality does
something like
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/Looking-Back-on-the-Limits-of-Growth.html

Here, irrational exhuberance prevents you from doing the
Right Thing and preventing the worst, leading to stark,
unmitigated disaster.

From msd001 at gmail.com  Wed Feb 27 12:51:16 2013
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 07:51:16 -0500
Subject: [ExI] we aren't the world
In-Reply-To: <512DCE59.1080300@aleph.se>
References: <00f401ce14a2$c8383f70$58a8be50$@rainier66.com>
 <512DCE59.1080300@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 4:14 AM, Anders Sandberg  wrote:
> The real fun starts, IMHO, when you give people a sniff of oxytocin. Then
> people become more generous:
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0001128
> There is a lot of research about how oxytocin changes people's altruism,
> generosity and willingness to punish defectors - and in-group favoritism -
> in economic games.

I figured the "leftover" money should go to a worthy charitable
organization.  That way I'm motivated by the the "no deal" option to
help a third party.  Though I guess an aggressively selfless griefer
would be able to put at least 200 in the charity column and possibly
set some precedent affecting the group's attitude.

"Strange game, the only winning move is not to play"

From spike at rainier66.com  Wed Feb 27 14:16:18 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 06:16:18 -0800
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <20130227124228.GT6172@leitl.org>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>

 <005001ce12ca$ba735f20$2f5a1d60$@rainier66.com> <512ACA12.1090703@aleph.se>
 <000f01ce1308$43bb0840$cb3118c0$@rainier66.com>

 <009101ce1399$98e71c50$cab554f0$@rainier66.com>
 <20130227124228.GT6172@leitl.org>
Message-ID: <002901ce14f5$03291490$097b3db0$@rainier66.com>

-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
[mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl

On Mon, Feb 25, 2013 at 12:49:24PM -0800, spike wrote:

>> >...Keep describing this dystopian future with a positive outlook.  It
> doesn't make it any less dystopian, but it's good to be positive about
it... Mike
> 
>>... Ja.  Irrational exuberance is better than no exuberance at all.

>...Here, irrational exhuberance prevents you from doing the Right Thing and
preventing the worst, leading to stark, unmitigated disaster.
_______________________________________________

Ja, and it was written with a point.  We in the states are currently
debating once again gun rights, after a spate of recent cases where crazies
went and shot up strangers for no apparent reason.  Some have suggested
making most guns illegal, but the constitution doesn't allow that.  Others
have suggested restricting violent video games and movies, but the
constitution doesn't allow that either.  It does allow laws to require
universal registration of firearms at the state level, but this comes at a
price: it takes away privacy from a segment of the population, which carries
new risks.  It takes away privacy from not only gun owners, but from non-gun
owners as well; the criminals can look up and see who owns the stuff they
want to steal and also who is not armed, so they know who they can rape and
kill safely.

After I look at all the choices, I am in a position of reluctantly agreeing
with those who say leave the laws as they are now, hire more armed guards.

I have gone full circle on this at least four times.  Privacy has its value,
openness has its value.  What I hope to do is if our society makes any
changes, we fully understand the many unintended consequences of our
actions, and we are ready to pay the price.

spike

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Wed Feb 27 18:17:28 2013
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 13:17:28 -0500
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <512D4F5A.4010008@aleph.se>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>
 <512A4637.3010208@aleph.se>

 <512D4F5A.4010008@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Anders Sandberg  wrote:

 > If I was chasing after you because you owed me money, then it is a
> matter for the justice system: I had a reason
>

Yes.

> > If I was chasing after you because I believed that you were a leprechaun
> who stole my name, then that is evidence that my reality checking is broken
> and it is a matter for the hospital.

In both cases it was not random and there was a reason you were chasing me
with a bloody ax, but in this case your reality checking system is so badly
broken that you are far more dangerous and more likely to kill again then
if you just did it because I owed you money, and so in a rational world the
leprechaun believing guy would be punished more severely not less as it is
today.

> Nobody says that delusional people have a real choice
>

Talk to me about people who do have "a real choice", explain to me how
their minds work; did something cause that choice, was their a reason for
it or was it random? I think there are few words that contain more useless
metaphysical gunk than the word "choice".

> > they do not update their beliefs when given clear evidence against them
>

People who "update their beliefs when given clear evidence against them"
are the way they are for a reason or they are the way they are for no
reason. And People who do NOT "update their beliefs when given clear
evidence against them" are the way they are for a reason or they are the
way they are for no reason. So why is one person responsible for their
actions and the other not?

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Wed Feb 27 17:26:06 2013
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 12:26:06 -0500
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <512D4AE3.9020304@aleph.se>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>
 <512A4637.3010208@aleph.se>

 <512D4AE3.9020304@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Tue, Feb 26, 2013  Anders Sandberg  wrote:

 > The point of punishment is manifold.
>

I profoundly disagree. The only legitimate point of punishment is to
prevent the person from performing the same evil act again and to deter
others from doing something similar. I don't deny that there can be other
reasons, like everyone else I am not completely free from sadistic thoughts
that come from the reptilian parts of my brain, but I am not proud of such
impulses and will not defend them. Some seem to think we should inflict
pain on evildoers just for the sake of pain, that if someone got pleasure
in a evil way we should cause him pain to somehow balance the ethical
books. I think that is nonsense and such a policy can only increase the net
unhappiness in the world.

> Looking at the list, rehabilitation and deterrence depend on learning.
>

Deterrence works but as for rehabilitation, well it would be wonderful if
we knew how to do it but we don't. In the real world we take a person who
grew up in a bad environment and lock him up in an absolutely horrible
prison environment and expect him to reform. The only thing on our side is
time, for some reason older people tend to be less violent than younger
ones.

> Removal/prevention is all about just preventing certain actions.
>

I don't understand what you mean by "just", isn't preventing certain
actions the entire point?

> Retaliation is more about inducing certain states in other people.

I'm not interested in the internal state of criminals, I'm only interested
in there external behavior; perhaps he thought he was catching butterflies
when the maniac chopped me up with a ax but that doesn't make me any less
dead, and if he was that disconnected with reality that makes him a very
very dangerous man and very likely to kill again either in prison (or a
mental hospital) or on the streets. And there is a practical consideration
too, a jury has a hard enough job figuring out what actually happened in a
criminal case, to demand that they also figure out what thoughts were
dancing around the head of the defendant at the time of the incident is
asking too much and turns the law into a mockery.

> > Ethicists might discuss the justice aspect of retribution endlessly,
>

That's why I have no use for ethicists, I see no evidence that they are
more ethical than non-ethicists.

> it is not fair to punish people who could not do otherwise
>

 I profoundly disagree. Let's talk about those who could have done
otherwise but chose not to and decided to commit murder. There are only 2
possibilities:

1) They chose to murder for a reason (bad genes or a bad environment or
both)
2) They chose to murder for NO reason (it was random)

So if we should not "punish people who could not do otherwise" then we
should not punish anybody anytime for anything. And that of course would
destroy society, therefore the only logical conclusion is that the entire
concept of a "moral agent" is meaningless and brings nothing but chaos to
the legal system, and so everybody should be responsible for their
actions.

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com  Wed Feb 27 20:17:38 2013
From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 17:17:38 -0300
Subject: [ExI] BBC on space solar
Message-ID: <00a201ce1527$7f2852e0$7d78f8a0$@gmail.com>

Space-based solar farms power up
It would solve our energy needs overnight. But with huge technological and
financial challenges, can space-based solar power ever take off?

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20130226-space-based-solar-farms-power-up

From mrjones2020 at gmail.com  Wed Feb 27 20:36:01 2013
From: mrjones2020 at gmail.com (J.R. Jones)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 15:36:01 -0500
Subject: [ExI] BBC on space solar
In-Reply-To: <00a201ce1527$7f2852e0$7d78f8a0$@gmail.com>
References: <00a201ce1527$7f2852e0$7d78f8a0$@gmail.com>
Message-ID: 

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Henrique Moraes Machado <
cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com> wrote:

> But with huge technological and
> financial challenges,
>

This is the story we're fed, but I can never embrace it.  We don't lack the
finances to do this...we lack the cooperation to do it.  That, and those in
power have no incentive really to make it happen.  In fact, they have a lot
at stake, and benefit more from it NOT happening.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From anders at aleph.se  Wed Feb 27 21:05:24 2013
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 21:05:24 +0000
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: 
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com> <512A4637.3010208@aleph.se>

 <512D4AE3.9020304@aleph.se>

Message-ID: <512E7514.2010606@aleph.se>

On 27/02/2013 17:26, John Clark wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013  Anders Sandberg  > wrote:
>
>     > The point of punishment is manifold.
>
>
> I profoundly disagree. The only legitimate point of punishment is to 
> prevent the person from performing the same evil act again and to 
> deter others from doing something similar. I don't deny that there can 
> be other reasons, like everyone else I am not completely free from 
> sadistic thoughts that come from the reptilian parts of my brain, but 
> I am not proud of such impulses and will not defend them.

Well, you profoundly disagree with nearly everybody else. Fine, but 
don't expect the justice system to work like you think it should do.

-- 
Anders Sandberg,
Future of Humanity Institute
Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Feb 27 22:32:12 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 22:32:12 +0000
Subject: [ExI] BBC on space solar
In-Reply-To: 
References: <00a201ce1527$7f2852e0$7d78f8a0$@gmail.com>

Message-ID: 

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 8:36 PM, J.R. Jones wrote:
> This is the story we're fed, but I can never embrace it.  We don't lack the
> finances to do this...we lack the cooperation to do it.  That, and those in
> power have no incentive really to make it happen.  In fact, they have a lot
> at stake, and benefit more from it NOT happening.
>

To be realistic the US doesn't have the finances to fight all the
current wars or pay for Obamacare. It just keeps on printing funny
money because nobody has yet told the Fed to stop doing it. But that
time will come.

BillK

From clementlawyer at gmail.com  Wed Feb 27 21:45:28 2013
From: clementlawyer at gmail.com (James Clement)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 16:45:28 -0500
Subject: [ExI] BBC on space solar
In-Reply-To: 
References: <00a201ce1527$7f2852e0$7d78f8a0$@gmail.com>

Message-ID: 

J.R. Jones  wrote:

> This is the story we're fed, but I can never embrace it.  We don't lack
> the finances to do this...we lack the cooperation to do it.  That, and
> those in power have no incentive really to make it happen.  In fact, they
> have a lot at stake, and benefit more from it NOT happening.
>
>
Ramen! The same story is true of most of the transhumanist technologies
we're interested in - space exploration/colonization, life-extension,
alternative energy, etc. We have trillions of dollars to bailout foreign
and domestic banks (even when they say they don't need it), to wage foreign
wars, and build boondoggle projects that improve the lives of only a few
contractors but not the public. But, there's little or no money for
advancing the human race technologically.

James
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From spike at rainier66.com  Thu Feb 28 04:11:57 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2013 20:11:57 -0800
Subject: [ExI] economic theory and experiment, was:  RE:  BBC on space solar
Message-ID: <000c01ce1569$c0b0ba80$42122f80$@rainier66.com>

>... On Behalf Of BillK

>...To be realistic the US doesn't have the finances to fight all the
current wars or pay for Obamacare. It just keeps on printing funny money
because nobody has yet told the Fed to stop doing it. But that time will
come.  BillK
_______________________________________________

BillK, we are watching an interesting experiment playing out right now in
the US government.  We often debate Keynesian vs Hayekian economic theory,
but coming very soon we will get to see actual experimental results, played
out on a grand scale.  The US congress couldn't agree on a spending plan, so
it set up a deal designed to scare both sides: if no agreement could be
reached, then there would be these huge draconian cuts, indiscriminately
across the board.  Nobody chickened out, and now these huge scary cuts are
set to hit Friday, two days from now.

Keynes would predict these cuts will destroy the economy, weaken the nation,
start a new recession, send the country into a tailspin, etc.  Hayek would
argue there will be short term pain, but in the long run, these cuts are
necessary, will help, and must take place, and we need more cuts.  Hayek
might even continue, these cuts are not nearly large enough.  The fed needs
to double the size of the cuts and see if that scares the congress into
action, but if it doesn't, then double again and repeat.

I say let the cuts go forth, see which economic theory comes out right.  How
else are we to know which theory is right, unless we perform an actual
experiment?

Any predictions?

spike

From stathisp at gmail.com  Thu Feb 28 11:20:12 2013
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 22:20:12 +1100
Subject: [ExI]  insanity plea
In-Reply-To: 
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>
 <512A4637.3010208@aleph.se>

 <512D4F5A.4010008@aleph.se>

Message-ID: 

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 5:17 AM, John Clark
>
wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 26, 2013 at 7:12 PM, Anders Sandberg >
wrote:
>
>> > If I was chasing after you because you owed me money, then it is a
>> > matter for the justice system: I had a reason
>
>
> Yes.
>
>
>>
>> > If I was chasing after you because I believed that you were a
leprechaun
>> > who stole my name, then that is evidence that my reality checking is
broken
>> > and it is a matter for the hospital.
>
>
> In both cases it was not random and there was a reason you were chasing me
> with a bloody ax, but in this case your reality checking system is so
badly
> broken that you are far more dangerous and more likely to kill again then
if
> you just did it because I owed you money, and so in a rational world the
> leprechaun believing guy would be punished more severely not less as it is
> today.

Detaining someone is not the same as punishing them. A dangerous psychotic
person can reasonably be detained at least until he is no longer dangerous,
but punishing him may be useless as well as unfair. This is not to say that
psychotic people should never bear any responsibility for their actions. If
I am hearing voices and hit you because I think you are calling me names I
should be punished, since I would be punished even if you really were
calling me names. But at the other end of the spectrum, I could experience
passivity phenomena that cause me to hit you, and in that case I have no
more control over it that if I tripped and fell on top of you.

>> > Nobody says that delusional people have a real choice
>
>
> Talk to me about people who do have "a real choice", explain to me how
their
> minds work; did something cause that choice, was their a reason for it or
> was it random? I think there are few words that contain more useless
> metaphysical gunk than the word "choice".
>
>>
>> > they do not update their beliefs when given clear evidence against them
>
>
> People who "update their beliefs when given clear evidence against them"
are
> the way they are for a reason or they are the way they are for no reason.
> And People who do NOT "update their beliefs when given clear evidence
> against them" are the way they are for a reason or they are the way they
are
> for no reason. So why is one person responsible for their actions and the
> other not?

Maybe you haven't had much contact with the mentally ill. Consider this
case. You start hearing the voice of God telling you that you must kill
your neighbour in order to prevent the Earth being hit by an asteroid. You
kill the neighbour, and the police arrest you. They ask you why you did it
and you tell them. They arrange a medical assessment and the doctor notices
that you have tachycardia, tremor, exophthalmos, weight loss and complain
of feeling hot even though it's cold. He orders thyroid function tests and
finds that you have Grave's Disease. You are admitted to hospital and are
treated with anti-thyroid medication, and later a rhyroidectomy, with
resolution of the symptoms, including the psychosis. Now well, you are
aghast at what you've done. At your trial, you point out that not only have
you never hurt another human being in your entire life, you are also an
atheist, as evidenced by your posts from this very list. Moreover, the
cause of your psychotic state, hyperthyroidism, has now been cured
surgically, and you pose no further risk to society.

None of the facts of the case are disputed by the prosecution. Should you
still get the same punishment as any other murderer?

--
Stathis Papaioannou

-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Thu Feb 28 16:01:38 2013
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 08:01:38 -0800
Subject: [ExI] BBC on space solar
Message-ID: 

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:00 AM,  "J.R. Jones"  wrote:

> On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 at 3:17 PM, Henrique Moraes Machado <
> cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> But with huge technological and
>> financial challenges,
>>
> This is the story we're fed, but I can never embrace it.  We don't lack the
> finances to do this...we lack the cooperation to do it.  That, and those in
> power have no incentive really to make it happen.  In fact, they have a lot
> at stake, and benefit more from it NOT happening.

Until recently, a year ago, there was no way known for the project to
make sense in economic terms.

The problem, which has been understood for a long time, is that the
transport to GEO has to get down to $100/kg for power satellites to
become a viable source of energy.  That's possible using laser
propulsion.  The Chinese may be counting on that or they may have
figured out some other method to get the cost down.  In any case, the
social dynamics are different in China, and they have energy problems
to the point power satellites are one of very few options.  It looks
like they were serious in the announcement they made last Nov.

What will be most interesting to watch (if they do intend to use
propulsion lasers) is how long it takes the US to wake up to the
military implications.

From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Feb 28 11:54:09 2013
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 11:54:09 +0000
Subject: [ExI] economic theory and experiment,
	was: RE: BBC on space solar
In-Reply-To: <000c01ce1569$c0b0ba80$42122f80$@rainier66.com>
References: <000c01ce1569$c0b0ba80$42122f80$@rainier66.com>
Message-ID: 

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:11 AM, spike  wrote:
> we are watching an interesting experiment playing out right now in
> the US government.  We often debate Keynesian vs Hayekian economic theory,
> but coming very soon we will get to see actual experimental results, played
> out on a grand scale.  The US congress couldn't agree on a spending plan, so
> it set up a deal designed to scare both sides: if no agreement could be
> reached, then there would be these huge draconian cuts, indiscriminately
> across the board.  Nobody chickened out, and now these huge scary cuts are
> set to hit Friday, two days from now.
>

If you put these 'theoretical' budget cuts into context, they are tiny
cuts compared to the scale of the US deficit problem.

(Note: They are theoretical, because usually governments find it
impossible to make cuts in actual expenditure. Governments make
symbolic cuts in some areas and increase spending in other areas, so
that overall the deficit monster continues to grow).

The proposed cuts are only 2.4% of federal spending.  So even if the
cuts actually happen, the deficit will continue to grow, and a
balanced budget is far out of reach. The illusion of US prosperity is
reliant on deficit spending and accumulating trillions in debt for
future generations to reap the consequences.

BillK

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Thu Feb 28 21:02:49 2013
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:02:49 -0500
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: <512E7514.2010606@aleph.se>
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>
 <512A4637.3010208@aleph.se>

 <512D4AE3.9020304@aleph.se>

 <512E7514.2010606@aleph.se>
Message-ID: 

On Wed, Feb 27, 2013 Anders Sandberg  wrote:

> you profoundly disagree with nearly everybody else.
>

I know.

>  don't expect the justice system to work like you think it should do.
>

After observing that even many Extropians think the term "free will"
actually means something (although they can't coherently say what) I have
no expectation of the general public demanding that the law be made
rational, at least not anytime soon.

  John K Clark

>
>
> --
> Anders Sandberg,
> Future of Humanity Institute
> Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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 spike at rainier66.com  Thu Feb 28 21:19:40 2013
From: spike at rainier66.com (spike)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 13:19:40 -0800
Subject: [ExI] economic theory and experiment,
	was: RE: BBC on space solar
In-Reply-To: 
References: <000c01ce1569$c0b0ba80$42122f80$@rainier66.com>

Message-ID: <00b901ce15f9$522d8d00$f688a700$@rainier66.com>

>... On Behalf Of BillK
Subject: Re: [ExI] economic theory and experiment, was: RE: BBC on space
solar

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 at 4:11 AM, spike  wrote:
>>... we are watching an interesting experiment playing out right now in the

> US government.  We often debate Keynesian vs Hayekian economic theory...
>

>...If you put these 'theoretical' budget cuts into context, they are tiny
cuts compared to the scale of the US deficit problem...The proposed cuts are
only 2.4% of federal spending.  So even if the cuts actually happen, the
deficit will continue to grow, and a balanced budget is far out of reach.
The illusion of US prosperity is reliant on deficit spending and
accumulating trillions in debt for future generations to reap the
consequences...BillK
_______________________________________________

Oy vey, how well we know, BillK, how tragically well at least some of us
know.  The denial of the obvious is astonishing, appalling.  Many of us
yanks continue to act as though we will never need to pay back debts, or
that some magic new technology will always appear to save our asses, such as
the electronics revolution, the desktop computer revolution, the internet
revolution, but look what happens as soon as we go 20 years without a new
revolution.  Then we gradually sober up and realize yes, we really do need
to pay off old debts, yes persistent deficits really do matter, yes even
governments need to be sustainable.

spike

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Thu Feb 28 21:21:19 2013
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Thu, 28 Feb 2013 16:21:19 -0500
Subject: [ExI] insanity plea
In-Reply-To: 
References: <011201ce0d7c$f753c090$e5fb41b0$@att.net> <51220700.802@aleph.se>

 <010f01ce12a4$92ec0180$b8c40480$@rainier66.com>
 <512A4637.3010208@aleph.se>

 <512D4F5A.4010008@aleph.se>

Message-ID: 

On Thu, Feb 28, 2013 Stathis Papaioannou  wrote:

> Detaining someone is not the same as punishing them.
>

The inmates in a penitentiary would disagree with you.

> > I could experience passivity phenomena that cause me to hit you,

Then you're a very dangerous man.

> and in that case I have no more control over it that if I tripped and
> fell on top of you.

I don't care.

> You start hearing the voice of God telling you that you must kill your
> neighbour in order to prevent the Earth being hit by an asteroid. You kill
> the neighbour, and the police arrest you. They ask you why you did it and
> you tell them. They arrange a medical assessment and the doctor notices
> that you have tachycardia, tremor, exophthalmos, weight loss and complain
> of feeling hot even though it's cold. He orders thyroid function tests and
> finds that you have Grave's Disease. You are admitted to hospital and are
> treated with anti-thyroid medication, and later a rhyroidectomy, with
> resolution of the symptoms, including the psychosis. Now well, you are
> aghast at what you've done. At your trial, you point out that not only have
> you never hurt another human being in your entire life, you are also an
> atheist, as evidenced by your posts from this very list. Moreover, the
> cause of your psychotic state, hyperthyroidism, has now been cured
> surgically, and you pose no further risk to society. None of the facts of
> the case are disputed by the prosecution. Should you still get the same
> punishment as any other murderer?
>

My mental malfunction has been repaired and I am quite literally not the
same man I was, so if the doctors can say beyond a reasonable doubt that I
am no more likely to murder again than the general population then I should
be released. However in the real world the thought experiment you describe
almost never happens,  and I'm not sure if I should have said "almost".

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: 