From painlord2k at libero.it Tue Jan 1 00:51:16 2013 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 01:51:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Women In-Reply-To: <201212280246.qBS2kmJm016910@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201212280246.qBS2kmJm016910@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <50E23304.5050202@libero.it> Il 28/12/2012 03:46, David Lubkin ha scritto: > Think out of the box. Assume you have, say, $20 billion to spend on > the problem and you don't care whose laws you break, collateral > damage, or ethics. Or make it a trillion. The treatment of girls and > women in large chunks of the world is appalling. What could you fund > that would have a high probability of changing this altogether within > 5-50 years? Just found an example of appalling treatment of women: http://www.parapundit.com/archives/008854.html http://cjonline.com/news/2012-12-28/court-case-query-topeka-man-sperm-donor-or-father?page=1 > Schroller, an attorney with Topeka-based Swinnen & Associates, said > the state became involved after the mother fell on hard times and > applied for financial assistance through the state. > > She said of Schreiner: ?My understanding is that after being pressed > on paternity of the child, she gave them William?s name as a sperm > donor. The state then filed this suit to determine paternity.? > > Angela de Rocha, spokeswoman for the Department for Children and > Families, said Friday that Kansas law prevented her from commenting > on the case. It is interesting like, in primitive societies the family of the woman is interested to know who is the father of "the son of the sin" to make him pay for making the woman no more marriageable. If the father is not held responsible the woman and her child would become a problem for her family. And in general these women would become a problem for the "primitive" societies. Now, women can live the lifestyle they like until the government become involved. The sugar daddy government become the patriarch in a patriarchal society, able and willing to force and menace the woman to give up the name of the man and able and willing to go after the man to extort the support for the child. Mirco P.S. I think some patriarch could feel offended if compared with the current US government. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 02:24:29 2013 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 21:24:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] how large is a human mind? Message-ID: Does anybody know how large is the individual, indexical part of an average human? What I mean is the part of a human's mind that needs to be specified aside from generic information in order to store it. I am assuming that a parsimonious way of storing humans would be to have a set of generic data sets describing common features (e.g. features of the average low-level input or output cortical area, the thousand-fold repeated recognizers in charge of detecting oriented lines or the millions of stored motor subroutines) which would then be combined with individual, indexical data to produce a sufficiently accurate copy. This is similar to the storage of individual human genomes as sets of divergences from a common reference genome sequence with a small number of common haplotypes. According to the wik, the compression ratios vary from 60 to 750 fold, which means an individual genome can be stored as a 4 MB file (James Watson's genome is used as an example http://www.ics.uci.edu/~dnazip/ ) A scan file of a human brain may be 20,000 TB and it should be possible to massively reduce the size of the file by replacing descriptions of the biological neural network subunits with non-biological but equivalent computational elements. The amount of compression achievable might be a few orders of magnitude. What I am asking about goes further: After building a detailed non-biological computational equivalent of an individual, it should be still possible to continue compression for storage purposes by using a library of reference mind substructures (recognizers) to substitute for a large fraction of the individual's subnetworks. For example, the cortical recognizers for dogs are most likely shared by everybody who has seen enough dogs, and these could be replaced in a compressed version of the individual with links to reference dog recognizers (i.e. low-level and intermediate level elements of sensory cortices capable of processing dog images/sounds/etc). The recognizers specifically marking some dogs as personal pets, linking to names and emotional centers would however be the definition of an individual, the essence of what makes him different from other individuals. So how small could we make this individual file? 200TB? 2 TB? 200 GB? My vague feeling is that the lower part of the range is more plausible but I am giving this very large range of numbers to express my lack of confidence in the estimates. Still, it should be rather cheap to pay for individual storage which means the competition for survival in the M-brain substrate could be about paying for single gigabytes of storage space. Rafal From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 1 03:33:01 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 19:33:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] tests again In-Reply-To: References: <001d01cde721$f433b9a0$dc9b2ce0$@att.net> Message-ID: <008101cde7d0$b3d8b4f0$1b8a1ed0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Sunday, December 30, 2012 11:47 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] tests again On Sun, Dec 30, 2012 at 10:42 PM, spike wrote: >. In the real world, we all have access to externalized knowledge. The test is designed to show how effectively the technician can access that external knowledge pool out there on the internet. All suggestions welcome. Spike >.Be careful: if your test becomes popular enough, then someone is likely to eventually write up the questions and answers they faced. In other words, their version of the test itself may become part of this externalized knowledge. Ja, this is why I wanted to use branching. That technique protects to some extent the content of the test leaking into the public domain, since only a small percentage of the questions are ever seen by any one test taker. >.What if they just said "Adjusting lash", with all those other words, rather than "Adjusting valve lash". .. This consideration has caused me to abandon the notion of both machine scoring and objective score all together. The test response will be recorded and I will subjectively evaluate which areas the candidate is strong, which not, and a general category of score will be assigned subjectively, perhaps returning to the original idea of seven ranks for each subspecialty. The beauty of this system is that each hiring manager has complete access to the responses of all the candidates, since memory is cheap. This means of evaluation is far more informative than the traditional five bubble test. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 06:05:53 2013 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 22:05:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] tests again In-Reply-To: <008101cde7d0$b3d8b4f0$1b8a1ed0$@att.net> References: <001d01cde721$f433b9a0$dc9b2ce0$@att.net> <008101cde7d0$b3d8b4f0$1b8a1ed0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 7:33 PM, spike wrote: > The test response will be > recorded and I will subjectively evaluate ...who, will? Whoever or whatever is grading the test, if their own subjectivity is to be relied upon, needs some knowledge of the domain. (Grading without such knowledge only seems possible for objective tests.) Are you sufficiently knowledgeable in all fields? Further, do you have the time to grade a million tests this way each day? Subjectivity is notoriously hard to automate, and whether or not it's right or should be that way, the reality is that education is done on the cheap, with resulting extremely limited resources, and that's unlikely to change soon. From agrimes at speakeasy.net Tue Jan 1 06:38:30 2013 From: agrimes at speakeasy.net (Alan Grimes) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 01:38:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] how large is a human mind? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50E28466.7040202@speakeasy.net> Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > My vague feeling is that the lower part of the range is more plausible > but I am giving this very large range of numbers to express my lack of > confidence in the estimates. Still, it should be rather cheap to pay > for individual storage which means the competition for survival in the > M-brain substrate could be about paying for single gigabytes of > storage space. Why would any slightly sane person permit such a regime to arise? -- E T F N H E D E D Powers are not rights. From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 1 06:57:53 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 22:57:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] tests again In-Reply-To: References: <001d01cde721$f433b9a0$dc9b2ce0$@att.net> <008101cde7d0$b3d8b4f0$1b8a1ed0$@att.net> Message-ID: <001401cde7ed$528cb170$f7a61450$@att.net> -----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, December 31, 2012 10:06 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] tests again On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 7:33 PM, spike wrote: >> The test response will be recorded and I will subjectively evaluate >...who, will? >...Whoever or whatever is grading the test, if their own subjectivity is to be relied upon, needs some knowledge of the domain. (Grading without such knowledge only seems possible for objective tests.) Are you sufficiently knowledgeable in all fields? I would distribute the results of a specific question to a hiring manager. Actually I don't need to evaluate the overall test at all. If I derive a test with the help of twenty hiring managers, I would then only need to archive the results. The hiring manager could go into the database and download the responses for all the questions 37, 55 and 73 for instance, these being the questions that she wrote or influenced. She may not care how the rest of the test was answered. Good point, and good idea regarding distributing the responses. I like the way this whole idea is taking shape. >...Further, do you have the time to grade a million tests this way each day? Oh my, this isn't on that scale. I had in mind about 100 test takers per month or so. >... Subjectivity is notoriously hard to automate, and whether or not it's right or should be that way, the reality is that education is done on the cheap, with resulting extremely limited resources, and that's unlikely to change soon. Adrian _______________________________________________ Ja, this entire exercise has been most educational for me. We haven't begun to take advantage of the resources at our disposal, evaluation of job applicants using the technologies enabled by desktop computers and internet connections. spike From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 08:32:21 2013 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 03:32:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] how large is a human mind? In-Reply-To: <50E28466.7040202@speakeasy.net> References: <50E28466.7040202@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 1:38 AM, Alan Grimes wrote: > Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >> >> My vague feeling is that the lower part of the range is more plausible >> but I am giving this very large range of numbers to express my lack of >> confidence in the estimates. Still, it should be rather cheap to pay >> for individual storage which means the competition for survival in the >> M-brain substrate could be about paying for single gigabytes of >> storage space. > > > Why would any slightly sane person permit such a regime to arise? > ### Are there many sane people around? I find Robin's arguments about the coming poverty of the uploads quite convincing although I tend also to think this will be very transient since the uploads will be outcompeted and perhaps even erased by superorganisms (entities consisting of large numbers of minds integrated much closer than ants in a colony). Which is why it's good to know how lean you can get. Rafal From atymes at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 07:25:05 2013 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 23:25:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] tests again In-Reply-To: <001401cde7ed$528cb170$f7a61450$@att.net> References: <001d01cde721$f433b9a0$dc9b2ce0$@att.net> <008101cde7d0$b3d8b4f0$1b8a1ed0$@att.net> <001401cde7ed$528cb170$f7a61450$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 10:57 PM, spike wrote: > We haven't begun > to take advantage of the resources at our disposal, evaluation of job > applicants using the technologies enabled by desktop computers and internet > connections. Or how about chatbots paired with neural networks, that evaluate millions of previously answered subjective tests to learn what good responses are to that question? Especially in environments more common to tests, where the test takers do not have unlimited on-the-spot 'Net access. (Or even if they do, would-be cheaters do not tend to have access to that same database...) From anders at aleph.se Tue Jan 1 11:14:46 2013 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 12:14:46 +0100 Subject: [ExI] how large is a human mind? In-Reply-To: <50E28466.7040202@speakeasy.net> References: <50E28466.7040202@speakeasy.net> Message-ID: <50E2C526.5000701@aleph.se> On 2013-01-01 07:38, Alan Grimes wrote: > Why would any slightly sane person permit such a regime to arise? Sounds like a common objection against a lot of situations we find ourselves in these days. Just consider the top news headlines. The answer typically is 1) we did not see it coming, 2) that we lacked the necessary coordination to avoid it, 3) nobody found a way of changing the rules unilaterally so that the state was avoided. While better smarts might fix 1, it is still worthless if the state is an attractor that will swallow you. Fixing 2 is risky because big coordination might squash individual liberty (but historically we have become better at coordinating, including non-coercive coordination). Fixing 3 is unreliable, since radical innovations that can change the underlying rules of societal states can also cause rapid and unexpected trouble: the fewer good states there are, the more risky innovation or institution design becomes. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Tue Jan 1 11:28:20 2013 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 12:28:20 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Expansion of the Universe In-Reply-To: <009701cde772$f28801a0$d79804e0$@att.net> References: <50DF8430.7040703@aleph.se> <50E0A855.6000303@aleph.se> <50E15FB4.7050602@aleph.se> <009701cde772$f28801a0$d79804e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <50E2C854.3030407@aleph.se> On 2012-12-31 17:21, spike wrote: > It fills one with a sense of urgency to realize that one has only 20 billion > years to live, and that's a best case scenario. It causes one to be so much > more aware of the passing of each geological age, to learn to take one eon > at a time, to live in the millennium, to seize the century, that sort of > thing. This is good advice for the new galactic year. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Tue Jan 1 13:02:34 2013 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 14:02:34 +0100 Subject: [ExI] how large is a human mind? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50E2DE6A.3040908@aleph.se> On 2013-01-01 03:24, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > Does anybody know how large is the individual, indexical part of an > average human? No. I think an answer to this question would be a profound step forward in neuroscience. In particular, it depends on what level of resolution an emulation needs to be done at, which is equivalent to answering roughly what kind of functional processing is going on in the whole CNS. I suspect the answer is that the size of the individual mind is large. This is an interesting paper: Ju Lu, Juan Carlos Tapia, Olivia L White, Jeff W Lichtman.The Interscutularis Muscle Connectome, PLOS biology: http://www.plosbiology.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1000032 looking at the connectivity in peripheral nerves within the same animal (left and right) and between animals. They found differences in topology within an animal on par with the differences between animals. If this were to hold in the CNS we should expect big differences in local connectivity from place to place even when they do the same thing. As one of the comments mention there is also plenty of variability in mRNA expression and ionic conductances in neurons of the same type (Schulz DJ, Goaillard JM, Marder E. (2006) ?Variable channel expression in identified single and electrically coupled neurons in different animals.? Nat. Neurosci. 9(3):356-62.) It should be noted that there are also evidence that some aspects of connectivity is fairly regular (Hill et al., Statistical connectivity provides a sufficient foundation for specific functional connectivity in neocortical neural microcircuits, PNAS 2012: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2012/09/17/1202128109.short ) - however, their results only explain 75% of the synapse locations, so there is plenty of variability even in a possibly highly constrained system. Whether different connectivities and properties mean different minds is the hard part. It is not hard to make neural networks with different connectivities and weights that do the same thing: we want to know the *functional* difference. For all we know, maybe the parameters co-vary so that we get exactly the same result. As far as I know there is no good measure for this (I have been tinkering with the question on and off - anybody know a good way of comparing two phase spaces with each other?) But we know that changes on an *individual neuron level* can be enough to cause macroscopically different behavior (Houweling, A., & Brecht, M. (2008). Behavioural report of single neuron stimulation in somatosensory cortex. Nature, 451(7174), 65-8.) - there is a good chance that these tiny differences add up to a great deal of individuality. Now if (say) 25% of cortical synapses are individually located, that means around 3.75e13 synapses. A neuron address is around 84-107 bits (depending on neuron number and whether we need to address individual compartments) - let's say 100 bits. That is about 426 terabytes. (There is information in the synapses too (potentiated or not, various time constants) but if it is less than 100 bits per synapse it doesn't matter). The 426 terabytes can certainly be compressed a bit. Neurons in one region often project to another region with a high probability along bundles, so their addresses are correlated. If we have ~100 areas and each area projects mostly to 10 other areas (handwave, handwave: http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2008/02/connecting_with_the_macaque.html http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2004/04/taking_a_cat_map.html ) then you just need 3.3 bits to say which area and then 30-39 bits for the individual target neuron (or compartment). That is a saving of about 60 bits per synapse, and we are already down to just 170 terabytes. If that process were to be repeated inside areas (a lot of them have retino/tono/topo-topic structures after all) we might get it down by one or two factors more, to 68 or 27 Tb compressed. If cortical minicolumns are what matters, then there is just a need for about 27 bits per neuron, and we need just 110 terabytes. Repeating the above argument, we get down to 44 or 17 terabytes when compressing. > My vague feeling is that the lower part of the range is more plausible > but I am giving this very large range of numbers to express my lack of > confidence in the estimates. Still, it should be rather cheap to pay > for individual storage which means the competition for survival in the > M-brain substrate could be about paying for single gigabytes of > storage space. The cost of storing and running a mind does not depend on absolute size but relative size and demand. If a mind requires m units of resources and M units are available, and there are N minds, we should expect the cost to be some increasing function of mN/M, likely concave (prices go way up when the M-brain is crowded to capacity). So we can model it as price = (mN/M)^a, where a>1. If the value of a mind is on average V, we should expect more minds being made until (mN/M)^a=V, or N=(M/m)V^(1/a). So the big determinant might be V and a, M/m just sets the scale. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Tue Jan 1 13:18:32 2013 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 14:18:32 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50E2E228.4030003@aleph.se> On 2012-12-31 16:38, John Clark wrote: > One year ago I sent the following post to the list, I did not change one > word. One year from now I intend to send this same message yet again. ... Like all holiday traditions, this message reinforces a sense of stability and sanity. Thanks! (The odd thing is, if psi were ever to become Nature-worthy science it would be exciting for us as a new tool for getting what we want or to understand nature, while it is likely that many pro-psi people would be dismayed at how their favorite mystery got turned into measurements, formulas and applications.) -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 13:26:52 2013 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 13:26:52 +0000 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: <50E2E228.4030003@aleph.se> References: <50E2E228.4030003@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 1:18 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > (The odd thing is, if psi were ever to become Nature-worthy science it would > be exciting for us as a new tool for getting what we want or to understand > nature, while it is likely that many pro-psi people would be dismayed at how > their favorite mystery got turned into measurements, formulas and > applications.) > > Yea..... 'exciting' in the same way that faster than light travel would be. Time travel and breaking causality would indeed be 'exciting'! BillK From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 16:12:24 2013 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 08:12:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Expansion of the Universe Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > On 2012-12-31 17:21, spike wrote: >> It fills one with a sense of urgency to realize that one has only 20 billion >> years to live, and that's a best case scenario. It causes one to be so much >> more aware of the passing of each geological age, to learn to take one eon >> at a time, to live in the millennium, to seize the century, that sort of >> thing. > > This is good advice for the new galactic year. It may be better than you think. Given uploading (expected), speedup (seems hard to avoid), and that the speedup is on the order of a million, then subjectively 20 billion years would stretch to 20 x 10^15 years, give or take a few orders of magnitude. It is slightly unnerving to think that some of us reading this list could experience 50 million subjective years before the end of this calendar century. Keith From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 17:10:14 2013 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 12:10:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Expansion of the Universe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 11:12 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > It is slightly unnerving to think that some of us reading this list > could experience 50 million subjective years before the end of this > calendar century. It already feels like a subjective millenium waiting for the next post to arrive in my inbox... once I go back to work, it'll feel like I've been there for a few multiples of that long and won't notice so much. From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 16:52:05 2013 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 11:52:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: <50E2E228.4030003@aleph.se> Message-ID: I do think this is a bit of a pointless post. I could imagine the human mind being versatile enough to glean enough information from body language, facial movement, speech patterns and content, etc. to effectively "read a mind" by *somebody's* standards. Of course, the second something like this is found out to be possible then we have a factual basis for it, and it is no longer psi-like. Your post really amounts to saying "An untestable, unexplainable human mental phenomenon will not have a paper on it published in a leading science journal"--but of course that is not the sort of thing that would be published in one of those journals! Maybe you mean to say that we won't discover some electromagnetic doodaddy weirdness in our brains. But I think if you told people of the past that we could put you in a magnet machine and see what you we're thinking, they might be a little bit incredulous. So then perhaps you mean to say that we won't discover human mental faculties that are unexplainable by physics as it is known to humanity up to 2012. But I have a sneaking suspicion that we have a bit of a way to go in understanding physics. So I will counter your nebulous statement with one I hope is slightly less: Eventually--maybe not this year, but almost certainly--a hitherto unknown or unexplored ability of the human mind will find mainstream scientific attention. And it won't be called psi. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From protokol2020 at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 17:24:09 2013 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 18:24:09 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: <50E2E228.4030003@aleph.se> Message-ID: Will, you are off. Way off. On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 5:52 PM, Will Steinberg wrote: > I do think this is a bit of a pointless post. I could imagine the human > mind being versatile enough to glean enough information from body language, > facial movement, speech patterns and content, etc. to effectively "read a > mind" by *somebody's* standards. Of course, the second something like this > is found out to be possible then we have a factual basis for it, and it is > no longer psi-like. Your post really amounts to saying "An untestable, > unexplainable human mental phenomenon will not have a paper on it published > in a leading science journal"--but of course that is not the sort of thing > that would be published in one of those journals! > > Maybe you mean to say that we won't discover some electromagnetic doodaddy > weirdness in our brains. But I think if you told people of the past that > we could put you in a magnet machine and see what you we're thinking, they > might be a little bit incredulous. So then perhaps you mean to say that we > won't discover human mental faculties that are unexplainable by physics as > it is known to humanity up to 2012. But I have a sneaking suspicion that > we have a bit of a way to go in understanding physics. > > So I will counter your nebulous statement with one I hope is slightly less: > > Eventually--maybe not this year, but almost certainly--a hitherto unknown > or unexplored ability of the human mind will find mainstream scientific > attention. > > And it won't be called psi. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ben at goertzel.org Tue Jan 1 17:52:38 2013 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 12:52:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: <50E2E228.4030003@aleph.se> References: <50E2E228.4030003@aleph.se> Message-ID: Anders, > (The odd thing is, if psi were ever to become Nature-worthy science it would > be exciting for us as a new tool for getting what we want or to understand > nature, while it is likely that many pro-psi people would be dismayed at how > their favorite mystery got turned into measurements, formulas and > applications.) "Pro-psi" people is a big umbrella, though... There is the scientifi psi research community, which does more rigorous data analysis than nearly any other research community around today, and essentially every member of which would be very happy to see psi results acknowledged in the leading journals Then there is the lay community of folks who believe in psi -- which is the majority of the world population, and obviously has diverse attitudes toward psi ... -- Ben G From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 18:03:20 2013 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 13:03:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: <50E2E228.4030003@aleph.se> Message-ID: Brilliant argument, Tomaz. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From protokol2020 at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 18:43:18 2013 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 19:43:18 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: <50E2E228.4030003@aleph.se> Message-ID: Thanks, Will. I simply follow the rule if something is presented with no arguments, it can be dismissed with no arguments. Or you have some arguments for this psi think? OTOH, John could come with the prediction that 2+3 will remain 5 in this year. On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Will Steinberg wrote: > Brilliant argument, Tomaz. > _______________________________________________ > 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 18:32:48 2013 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 13:32:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: <50E2E228.4030003@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 Will Steinberg wrote: > Your post really amounts to saying "An untestable, unexplainable human > mental phenomenon will not have a paper on it published in a leading > science journal"- > A untestable ANYTHING will not and should not be published in any journal that calls itself "scientific", but I am saying that in the coming year there will be no evidence presented that a new mental phenomenon has been discovered that even needs a physical explanation. > but of course that is not the sort of thing that would be published in > one of those journals! > Don't be ridiculous, the quickest path to scientific immortality is to discover a new phenomenon for which there is currently no explanation. The good people at CERN have spent well over 10 billion dollars desperately hoping to find something new and unexplained, but at least so far they have been disappointed, in fact to their chagrin it's been almost 40 years since a particle accelerator has found something surprising. On the other hand telescopes have found lots of strange unexpected things in the last 40 years, and there is still no good explanation for them, but that didn't prevent people from winning Nobel Prizes for discovering those mysteries. > Eventually--maybe not this year, but almost certainly--a hitherto unknown > or unexplored ability of the human mind will find mainstream scientific > attention. > Let's make a bet! If there is a article in Science or Nature or Physical Review Letters about something (by whatever name) in the brain or in the mind that violates the known laws of physics before January 1 2014 I will give you $1000 and if there is not you only have to give me $100. I don't demand a explanation of this new phenomena just that the editors of one of those journals thinks that there is something to explain. So do we have a bet? I'm completely serious about this and if there is anybody else who would like to take this bet please say so; come on, I'm giving you 10 to 1 odds. if you believe in psi it's easy money. > And it won't be called psi. > First it was just religion then it was spiritualism then it was ESP then it was psi, I figure it's about time for yet another name change, but Bullshit by any other name would stink as bad. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 19:28:27 2013 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 14:28:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: <50E2E228.4030003@aleph.se> Message-ID: Who believes in psi? It is a meaningless term. It seems that from my post some of you are led to believe I am a believer. I get a hardon for Randi like all y'all. I just think you don't need to post this. I will take an expanded version of your bet. I will bet you one million dollars that, sometime in the next million years, we will delve deeper into cognitive science and craft brains which have astounding abilities. Not true precognition or kinesis or impossibilities, just mental tasks which today seem impossible--like being able to make scarily accurate predictions from seemingly disparate facts. I guarantee the human biocomputer has shown only a tiny, tiny fraction of its power. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ablainey at aol.com Tue Jan 1 20:08:55 2013 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 15:08:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] Women In-Reply-To: <002501cde4d8$bc8ba670$35a2f350$@att.net> References: <201212280246.qBS2kmJm016910@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <007b01cde4a8$245aedf0$6d10c9d0$@att.net> <50DD199D.8080209@moulton.com> <002501cde4d8$bc8ba670$35a2f350$@att.net> Message-ID: <8CFB672F5A4E88A-93C-76D3E@webmail-d062.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: spike >A big part of the problem in a lot of places is the culture itself, and very >likely the religion. Those religions that cherish ancient writings for >instance have an inherent difficulty changing with the times. To me that's not just a big part it is the fundamental issue. The treatment of Women is a direct result of a foundation stone of human philosophy, Ownership of the self. In a culture where the self has any sort of ownership by higher authority such as God. Thus ownership of others descends from God. It is then by extension 100% logical to see ownership of others as a basic and perfectly moral right. Even to see it as beneficial for the owned, which it usually is. Culturally as society and trade evolved we reinforced ownership of others through contracts such as marriage. The male gives his sweat equity to provide food, shelter, protection etc. In return the women gives her reproductive ability, loyalty and subservience as laid out in the marriage vows. Somewhat antiquated notions by our modern eyes and loosing favour within western religion. While it originally stemmed from the basic natural male dominance and gender roles it was given moral support by both religion and law. It's only really due to the recent decline in religion in the westernised world that these "fundamental" moralities have been overturned. This has come about due to the realisation of self ownership. God doesn't own me, No one owns me. No one has responsibility for my life except me. SO THERE!....ah ok, then Likewise if I extend that logic to all other people, I cannot morally justify any sort of sexist oppression, or any other oppression and so on. While movement like the suffragettes (>you go girls!<) and feminism (>insert rabid comment here<) have done their bit. They were really secondary as they were top down rights arguments that left the underlying problem in place. So until other cultures get their heads around total self ownership, the problem is not going away. We can throw as much money and new law at it as we want, but the moral/logical foundations which it stems from will remain and it will be a persistent and recurrent problem. People will continue to follow the logic from a flawed starting point and will ignore laws we put in place designed to fix this. Such laws won't make sense to them and they will see it as an immoral attack on both them and their culture. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 1 20:10:34 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 12:10:34 -0800 Subject: [ExI] bees again Message-ID: <005d01cde85c$0ee18b70$2ca4a250$@att.net> Walking today I noticed a grouping of dead bees on the sidewalk, so I went home, returned with a clean Tupperware container, collected about fifty of them. I noticed they were almost all in a feet-down configuration as opposed to on their sides or feet-up. It wasn't particularly cold last night, with a minimum of about 5C, or low 40s F, clear skies. All stingers were intact, no signs of trauma on the bees. Before I even made it all the way back home, I was surprised to see one bee was alive and apparently well, flying about inside the container. Now, about half an hour after I collected the lifeless bees, several of them (about eight) appear healthy, with another several demonstrating some sign of life, such as a moving leg. I don't know what to make of it. I have never seen a bunch of bees just land in random patterns on the sidewalk like that and go into a deathlike dormancy. I was thinking of going up to Stanford, see if their entomologists had some suggestions, or go over to Lockheed, put them in our chemical spectral analyzer, see if we could detect neonicotinoids or something. Had these bees landed in the grass nearby, no one would have ever observed them. They would be just the colony which mysteriously disappeared. If anyone knows anyone who is interested in this, a local university or something, I am willing to mail the bees to them. Open to suggestion. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lubkin at unreasonable.com Tue Jan 1 20:51:15 2013 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Tue, 01 Jan 2013 15:51:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] tests again In-Reply-To: References: <001d01cde721$f433b9a0$dc9b2ce0$@att.net> <008101cde7d0$b3d8b4f0$1b8a1ed0$@att.net> <001401cde7ed$528cb170$f7a61450$@att.net> Message-ID: <201301012051.r01KpSQg023385@andromeda.ziaspace.com> The varied ways that someone might answer a question aren't necessarily an insurmountable problem. I'd been thinking about the issue as it relates to conventional test items. The problem with a number sequence item like 3 5 7 9 11 ___ is that, mathematically speaking, any number can come next. Given any finite sequence, a formula can be devised that will yield that sequence. Which turns it from math or pattern recognition or reasoning to Family Feud. Guess the answer that the test creator had had in mind. The right way is probably to give both the next number and the formula that yields the number you gave. On grading, if it's the answer you'd expected, mark as correct. If not, look at the formula given. Likewise for analogy problems. fish : orange :: bicycle : _________ should not be a test of whether you guessed the answer the author had in mind. Especially since these are used on IQ tests or their academic surrogates (e.g., the Miller Analogies Test). If you're smarter than the test's author, you're apt to see connections that he hadn't. So, again, the test taker should briefly explain why her answer works. On grading, don't check the explanation unless the expected answer wasn't selected. (The answer I'm looking for in the analogy above is Seder plate.) For your situation, the varieties and sophistications of answers you'd come up with can serve as filters to reduce the number of answers that have to be looked at by a human grader. In all three situations, once a novel answer has been confirmed ? or rejected ? the grading software can be set up to handle that answer automatically in the future. This is essentially the best strategy historically for expert systems ? guided machine learning. -- David. From ben at goertzel.org Tue Jan 1 19:22:09 2013 From: ben at goertzel.org (Ben Goertzel) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 14:22:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: <50E2E228.4030003@aleph.se> Message-ID: Tomaz, The three books referenced near the end of this web page of mine, summarize a bunch of the existing evidence in favor of the reality of psi: http://wp.goertzel.org/?page_id=154 -- Outside the Gates of Science, by Damien Broderick -- Randi?s Prize, by Robert McLuhan -- Basic Research in Parapsychology, by K. Ramakrishna Rao If you're genuinely curious, please read them.... I don't have time to summarize the material for this email list; I'm pretty bored with flame wars on the topic, and with trying to convince closed-minded "skeptics" ... -- Ben Goertzel On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 1:43 PM, Tomaz Kristan wrote: > Thanks, Will. I simply follow the rule if something is presented with no > arguments, it can be dismissed with no arguments. > > Or you have some arguments for this psi think? > > OTOH, John could come with the prediction that 2+3 will remain 5 in this > year. > > > On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 7:03 PM, Will Steinberg > wrote: >> >> Brilliant argument, Tomaz. >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- Ben Goertzel, PhD http://goertzel.org "My humanity is a constant self-overcoming" -- Friedrich Nietzsche From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 21:30:15 2013 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 16:30:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: <50E2E228.4030003@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 12:52 PM, Ben Goertzel wrote: > There is the scientifi psi research community, which does more > rigorous data analysis than nearly any other research community around > today, and essentially every member of which would be very happy to > see psi results acknowledged in the leading journals > Well then why not take my bet? If it's true that psi researchers are masters of "rigorous data analysis" then that $1000 is as good as yours. I know that I and the worldwide conspiracy of which I am a part have managed from the early 19'th century to keep the rock solid evidence of the existence of psi from being accepted, our operatives have been successful in stamping out the truth so far but our nefarious conspiratorial organization (aka "The Men In Black") is bound to make a mistake eventually and the true and glorious nature of psi will become known not just to mainstream science but to everyone, and then our agents of evil who have been successful in suppressing the truth for so long will have no choice but to slink back into the shadows and allow a new enlightened age based on psi to develop. In short if you believe what you're saying you've got no excuse not to take my bet. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk Tue Jan 1 21:58:37 2013 From: nebathenemi at yahoo.co.uk (Tom Nowell) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 21:58:37 +0000 (GMT) Subject: [ExI] Women In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1357077517.19159.YahooMailClassic@web171904.mail.ir2.yahoo.com> Natasha wrote:"This might or might not be related, but I wonder how many men in the Middle East (West Asia) and Asia have sex change to become women vs. women to become men. Then I'd like to compare this to the Western world's stats." This is likely to be complicated by the way the different societies involved view gender. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7259057.stm summarises a programme adapted from the film "Be Like Others", about sex changes in Iran. The "Middle East" is not homogenous, there are many cultures there. Likewise in Asia the Thai concept of Katoey http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Katoey is different from western ideas of gender. Any raw statistics on what we consider "gender reassignment surgery" in Thailand would have to be viewed in light of the dominant culture of that country's views on gender. Tom From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 18:29:24 2013 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 11:29:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Expansion of the Universe In-Reply-To: <009701cde772$f28801a0$d79804e0$@att.net> References: <50DF8430.7040703@aleph.se> <50E0A855.6000303@aleph.se> <50E15FB4.7050602@aleph.se> <009701cde772$f28801a0$d79804e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:21 AM, spike wrote: > It fills one with a sense of urgency to realize that one has only 20 > billion > years to live, and that's a best case scenario. It causes one to be so > much > more aware of the passing of each geological age, to learn to take one eon > at a time, to live in the millennium, to seize the century, that sort of > thing. > I love you Spike, in a big brother sort of way... Thanks for helping put things into proper perspective... -Kelly -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 1 22:35:37 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 14:35:37 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Expansion of the Universe In-Reply-To: References: <50DF8430.7040703@aleph.se> <50E0A855.6000303@aleph.se> <50E15FB4.7050602@aleph.se> <009701cde772$f28801a0$d79804e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <008601cde870$52b70640$f82512c0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] >.Subject: Re: [ExI] Expansion of the Universe On Mon, Dec 31, 2012 at 9:21 AM, spike wrote: It fills one with a sense of urgency. take one eon at a time, to live in the millennium, to seize the century, that sort of thing. I love you Spike, in a big brother sort of way... Thanks for helping put things into proper perspective... -Kelly Big brother? Whaddya mean, I'm the big brother Kelly, I'm older than you pal. {8-] Thanks for the sentiment. I am thankful for all my younger brothers and sisters here, and a few big sibs. You guys keep me thinking and encouraging me to continue downloading my brains into the internet. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 1 22:37:46 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 14:37:46 -0800 Subject: [ExI] bees again Message-ID: <008b01cde870$9fa2f310$dee8d930$@att.net> I sent this earlier today but it never went thru. Trying again. s From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 12:11 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: bees again Walking today I noticed a grouping of dead bees on the sidewalk, so I went home, returned with a clean Tupperware container, collected about fifty of them. I noticed they were almost all in a feet-down configuration as opposed to on their sides or feet-up. It wasn't particularly cold last night, with a minimum of about 5C, or low 40s F, clear skies. All stingers were intact, no signs of trauma on the bees. Before I even made it all the way back home, I was surprised to see one bee was alive and apparently well, flying about inside the container. Now, about half an hour after I collected the lifeless bees, several of them (about eight) appear healthy, with another several demonstrating some sign of life, such as a moving leg. I don't know what to make of it. I have never seen a bunch of bees just land in random patterns on the sidewalk like that and go into a deathlike dormancy. I was thinking of going up to Stanford, see if their entomologists had some suggestions, or go over to Lockheed, put them in our chemical spectral analyzer, see if we could detect neonicotinoids or something. Had these bees landed in the grass nearby, no one would have ever observed them. They would be just the colony which mysteriously disappeared. If anyone knows anyone who is interested in this, a local university or something, I am willing to mail the bees to them. Open to suggestion. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jan 1 20:58:28 2013 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 20:58:28 +0000 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: <005d01cde85c$0ee18b70$2ca4a250$@att.net> References: <005d01cde85c$0ee18b70$2ca4a250$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 8:10 PM, spike wrote: > Walking today I noticed a grouping of dead bees on the sidewalk, so I went > home, returned with a clean Tupperware container, collected about fifty of > them. I noticed they were almost all in a feet-down configuration as > opposed to on their sides or feet-up. It wasn?t particularly cold last > night, with a minimum of about 5C, or low 40s F, clear skies. All stingers > were intact, no signs of trauma on the bees. Before I even made it all the > way back home, I was surprised to see one bee was alive and apparently well, > flying about inside the container. Now, about half an hour after I > collected the lifeless bees, several of them (about eight) appear healthy, > with another several demonstrating some sign of life, such as a moving leg. > > At first I thought they might just have been sleeping. But hive bees usually sleep on the floor of the hive. So it was probably the temperature got too cold for them to be able to fly back to the hive. Bees don't fly when the temperature gets down to approx 50F. See: (third reply). BillK From ablainey at aol.com Tue Jan 1 23:30:30 2013 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 18:30:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] College 2.0 In-Reply-To: <201212301701.qBUH10jJ002533@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201212301701.qBUH10jJ002533@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <8CFB68F1F553919-1AA8-67C79@Webmail-d120.sysops.aol.com> Im a believer in the free education ideal. I can't believe how a low pay or no pay school teacher in Africa can teach a group of 50 kids to a reasonable level. While some of our multi-million ?/$ establishment can't get intelligent kids to a GED. To me that highlights the problem is not fiscal. Seeing any new idea that brings "ejumakation" to the masses gets a thumbs up from me, more so when it is cheaper than the other options. Maybe half of the problem is that people don't know free or cheap education routes exist. How many sign up for EDx, MITx or have Khan Academy, Wolfram alpha bookmarked compared to the number who are too busy moaning about how student loans while spending their precious time watching some chap pretend to ride a horse while rapping? Lesson #1 in education should be the value of education, not the cost. -----Original Message----- From: David Lubkin To: Extropy Chat Sent: Sun, 30 Dec 2012 17:08 Subject: [ExI] College 2.0 There are changes afoot in college education. We've been in an obscene cycle for decades. Families can't afford college, so there's political pressure to increase government assistance. As this happens, the schools raise their tuition to sop up the new money and fix the level of pain back where it was. While adding a deferred pain in loans the students can never pay back through the largely useless degrees they obtained. Some students, facing an uncomfortable workplace, go back for more degrees and more debt. All adding to political pressure to forgive much of this debt, which in effect furthers the burden on taxpayers who were out working. But probably not today's taxpayers, since we'll just increase the federal debt even further. Meanwhile, in other industries, costs plummet, in ripples from Moore's Law. And more and more efforts to give you stuff for free, often in exchange for ads you ignore or block, or data sold off about you. With college tuition priced to compete with what you pay for your recreational activities, there's great potential. I never stopped after graduate school. I just kept on buying books and learning, and still do, decades later. But I don't pay tuition, buy exorbitant textbooks, listen to dull lectures, learn lockstep to the class, or jump through professors' and school administrative hoops. At the prices discussed in this article, my interest is perked. Maybe I'll get another degree or forty. Now, I'm an outlier. But how many people would take a class or two, finish their degree, or get a master's if it cost no more than a cable tv package? My guess is this is, at least, a billion-dollar market. That will ultimately result in the dramatic reformation of the existing model of higher education. The on-campus experience will survive, but largely priced at a point a student could afford with a part-time job with no need of grants or loans. -- David. _______________________________________________ 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 Tue Jan 1 23:25:17 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 15:25:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: <005d01cde85c$0ee18b70$2ca4a250$@att.net> Message-ID: <009f01cde877$42bb3610$c831a230$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] bees again On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 8:10 PM, spike wrote: >>... Walking today I noticed a grouping of dead bees on the sidewalk, so I > went home, returned with a clean Tupperware container, collected about > fifty of them... >...At first I thought they might just have been sleeping. But hive bees usually sleep on the floor of the hive... Ja. Now, about four hours later, the same about a third of the bees are alive, the rest perished. I wouldn't have thought it was cold enough last night to kill the bees. >...So it was probably the temperature got too cold for them to be able to fly back to the hive. Bees don't fly when the temperature gets down to approx 50F. BillK _______________________________________________ I have a mind to test these for poisons, but it is puzzling that some of the bees should have completely recovered if they did get poison. That 2/3 should perish is more consistent with exposure, but doesn't explain how so many of them were caught out in the open. The fifty bees were collected all within a circle of about 20 meter radius. By the amount of grass nearby, where they couldn't be found had they landed there, I would estimate a few hundred bees suffered the same fate. I am surprised none of the bees showed any signs of life when I collected them, even though the temperature was high 50s F by that time around 11am, and some were in direct sunlight on this clear day. Most puzzling. The server might be messing up. I am not seeing my own messages but I am seeing replies. spike From ablainey at aol.com Tue Jan 1 23:47:00 2013 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 18:47:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: <008b01cde870$9fa2f310$dee8d930$@att.net> References: <008b01cde870$9fa2f310$dee8d930$@att.net> Message-ID: <8CFB6916D1E0165-1AA8-67D6B@Webmail-d120.sysops.aol.com> Ive BEEn (groan) keeping a eye on local numbers since you raised the bee issue a few years ago. The main reason was that we have a large number of solitary bees living in our garden and I raised the question of such species increasing in number to fill the gap caused by hive collapse. All I can say is that the numbers living outside have multiplied noticeably in our wall mortar, screw holes under the table, keyholes,.....in fact any small hole they can find in anything, anywhere. I was surprised to find about 20 little mud cocoons inside an electrical switchbox I put on the wall last year. Additionally I have been on the war path hacking down Rhododendrons (invasive species here) which has greatly reduced the flowers available to them. Its also been a terrible year for weather. So I was honestly expecting them to decline but far from it. It would seem from my very limited observation that the numbers of solitaries is on the up. I wonder if that is being reflected elsewhere? tbh im also wondering where my bees are getting enough food from? -----Original Message----- From: spike To: 'ExI chat list' Sent: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 22:58 Subject: Re: [ExI] bees again I sent this earlier today but it never went thru. Trying again. s From: spike [mailto:spike66 at att.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 12:11 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: bees again Walking today I noticed a grouping of dead bees on the sidewalk, so I went home, returned with a clean Tupperware container, collected about fifty of them. I noticed they were almost all in a feet-down configuration as opposed to on their sides or feet-up. It wasn?t particularly cold last night, with a minimum of about 5C, or low 40s F, clear skies. All stingers were intact, no signs of trauma on the bees. Before I even made it all the way back home, I was surprised to see one bee was alive and apparently well, flying about inside the container. Now, about half an hour after I collected the lifeless bees, several of them (about eight) appear healthy, with another several demonstrating some sign of life, such as a moving leg. I don?t know what to make of it. I have never seen a bunch of bees just land in random patterns on the sidewalk like that and go into a deathlike dormancy. I was thinking of going up to Stanford, see if their entomologists had some suggestions, or go over to Lockheed, put them in our chemical spectral analyzer, see if we could detect neonicotinoids or something. Had these bees landed in the grass nearby, no one would have ever observed them. They would be just the colony which mysteriously disappeared. If anyone knows anyone who is interested in this, a local university or something, I am willing to mail the bees to them. Open to suggestion. 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 Tue Jan 1 23:48:04 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 15:48:04 -0800 Subject: [ExI] College 2.0 In-Reply-To: <8CFB68F1F553919-1AA8-67C79@Webmail-d120.sysops.aol.com> References: <201212301701.qBUH10jJ002533@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <8CFB68F1F553919-1AA8-67C79@Webmail-d120.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <00ac01cde87a$7192e980$54b8bc80$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of ablainey at aol.com Sent: Tuesday, January 01, 2013 3:31 PM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [ExI] College 2.0 Im a believer in the free education ideal. I can't believe how a low pay or no pay school teacher in Africa can teach a group of 50 kids to a reasonable level. While some of our multi-million ?/$ establishment can't get intelligent kids to a GED? Ja. Part of that might be that the African school has only the worthy students, whereas we cram all our students into school regardless of their suitability. I think we will see success in online education because those who are suitable will find it and use it. It occurred to me that we have had free online education for at least 25 years. Plenty of us managed to extract one hell of an education in math just from experimenting with Excel over the years. It sure worked for me. Early internet users educated each other. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ablainey at aol.com Wed Jan 2 00:53:57 2013 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 19:53:57 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] how large is a human mind? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CFB69AC77A4CDC-1AA8-68163@Webmail-d120.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: Rafal Smigrodzki >For example, the cortical >recognizers for dogs are most likely shared by everybody who has seen >enough dogs, and these could be replaced in a compressed version of >the individual with links to reference dog recognizers I wouldn't agree. While we both know what "dogs" are and can converse meaningfully about dogs, the personal experiences and subsequent neural pathways that have been constructed in order to create the Dog recognisers will be very different. 1+1+1=3 and 8-5=3 we can both talk about 3 but how we get there is totally different and in this case, also hidden from us. All we know is that we both understand 3 as a symbol for something. A silly related example. During the xmas ordeal I was subjected to the usual family game of charades where Mrs Blainey was trying to mime "steering wheel". Simultaneously myself and offspring #3 shouted "Milking a cow" at which point everyone laughed and couldn't understand how either of us let alone both of us could see it. In context my take on that is that our reconisers are sometimes similarly unique due to genetics but often incredibly different to other people. If you are talking generics you could perhaps reduce to some kind of average recogniser?? but it would lose the individuality of the mind. So an average storage value + ?% allowing for individual difference may be sufficient for each recogniser? Then you have the problem that the number of recognisers from person to person would be very different. Im also not sure how much compression you could apply if any? I personally believe the brain already compresses data so think the lowest you could safely go would be attributing x number of bytes per neuron. Which should give your normal bell curve for min/max data storage limits for any member of the populous. So (average brain volume)/(average neuron count per cc). Then from that derive some arbitrary data volume needed per cc. Apply min/max threshold and out pops a total figure in TB. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ablainey at aol.com Wed Jan 2 01:11:21 2013 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2013 20:11:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] Expansion of the Universe In-Reply-To: <009801cde774$43dc5c30$cb951490$@att.net> References: <50DF8430.7040703@aleph.se> <50E0A855.6000303@aleph.se> <50E15FB4.7050602@aleph.se> <009801cde774$43dc5c30$cb951490$@att.net> Message-ID: <8CFB69D360C7997-1AA8-68275@Webmail-d120.sysops.aol.com> I wouldn't worry. My theory is that the universe is collapsing and doing it soo quickly that we perceive time backwards. So Its the big crunch we need to worry about, or rather our protozoic ancestors need to worry about.!!! :oD Out of interest have you every been scuba diving and experienced the blue orb? Its impossible to understand the big picture from such a limited perspective. Our measurement of local expansion may be a misinterpretation of local tidal movement? Universally speaking we are nothing but amoeba trying to understand the ripples in a tiny droplet of the ocean. Our big bang nothing but the pressure waves and movement from a nearby bubble. -----Original Message----- From: spike To: 'ExI chat list' Sent: Mon, 31 Dec 2012 16:55 Subject: Re: [ExI] Expansion of the Universe From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Tomaz Kristan Sent: Monday, December 31, 2012 4:09 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Expansion of the Universe >>? We probably want to *stop* the galaxy as it arrives? Why? >?Don't worry! It will be stopped with the galaxy coming from the opposite direction? Not really. Galaxies are such diaphanous objects that two galaxies can pass right through each other with a high likelihood of zero actual stellar collisions. Of course the gravity causes stars to go flying all over the place, but that might be a good thing. For a long time I hoped the universe might be closed by the mass of individual stars that went flying into intergalactic space from early interactions of galaxies, individual stars that we had no means to detect. So Perlmutter?s accelerating inflation idea was very disappointing. spike In the case of the eternal inflation we should consider this very seriously. Building a hyper-massive black hole here. > or maybe the Great Attractor is actually our local dark-matter powered supercivilization? It is a small probability for that, but not entirely impossible. In the case of an artificial attractor detected, it would maybe be the best strategy to go there. With the local Virgo-Coma supercluster, of course. _______________________________________________ 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jan 2 16:33:32 2013 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 11:33:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] how large is a human mind? In-Reply-To: <50E2DE6A.3040908@aleph.se> References: <50E2DE6A.3040908@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > The 426 terabytes can certainly be compressed a bit. Sure but it wouldn't be necessary, today the Staples store half a mile from me is selling a 2 terabyte drive for $110, and the cost of hard disk storage is falling even faster than Moore's law for microprocessors. > The cost of storing and running a mind does not depend on absolute size > but relative size and demand. I'm not too worried about the cost of running a mind, if it's too expensive now just wait a few years, I'm much more concerned about the cost of obtaining that 426 terabytes from three pounds of human brain. But if the brain can be preserved without significant information loss then all that data doesn't need to be obtained with existing technology; so what I really want to know is if freezing or chemical fixation is the best way to do this. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ablainey at aol.com Thu Jan 3 00:49:05 2013 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 19:49:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] list down? In-Reply-To: References: <50E2DE6A.3040908@aleph.se> Message-ID: <8CFB76343EA9212-AE8-85E28@webmail-m006.sysops.aol.com> Ping................ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Jan 3 01:03:52 2013 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 17:03:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] list down? In-Reply-To: <8CFB76343EA9212-AE8-85E28@webmail-m006.sysops.aol.com> References: <50E2DE6A.3040908@aleph.se> <8CFB76343EA9212-AE8-85E28@webmail-m006.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Pong. Some days, not much gets said. On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:49 PM, wrote: > > > > Ping................ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From spike66 at att.net Thu Jan 3 01:24:52 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2013 17:24:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] list down? In-Reply-To: References: <50E2DE6A.3040908@aleph.se> <8CFB76343EA9212-AE8-85E28@webmail-m006.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <00e101cde951$21fddb00$65f99100$@att.net> The list has been flakey for a few days however. Several times I have posted comments and never saw them, but saw that someone had replied. Very weird. I saw one reply which someone had put in parentheses (third attempt), leading me to conclude others are having the same problem. 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: Wednesday, January 02, 2013 5:04 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] list down? Pong. Some days, not much gets said. On Wed, Jan 2, 2013 at 4:49 PM, wrote: > > > > Ping................ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From anders at aleph.se Thu Jan 3 09:24:44 2013 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 10:24:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: <8CFB6916D1E0165-1AA8-67D6B@Webmail-d120.sysops.aol.com> References: <008b01cde870$9fa2f310$dee8d930$@att.net> <8CFB6916D1E0165-1AA8-67D6B@Webmail-d120.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <50E54E5C.9080609@aleph.se> On 2013-01-02 00:47, ablainey at aol.com wrote: > The main reason was that we have a large number of solitary bees living > in our gardenand I raised the question of such species increasing in > number to fill the gap caused by hive collapse. I do not think I have reliable data or observations, but I do think I see more hoverflies and non-bee pollinators. However, this could just be a bias, since I do not care much for hymenoptera. (But I also don't care for the hoverflies, so maybe that evens out.) Generally, the Bay Area has always struck me as unusually insect-free compared to other urban places. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From rtomek at ceti.pl Thu Jan 3 17:53:08 2013 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 18:53:08 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] [tt] Promising compound restores memory loss and reverses symptoms of Alzheimer's (in mice) (fwd) Message-ID: (Of course, mice are not humans and vice versa. But it might be interesting anyway - TR) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Thu, 03 Jan 2013 11:47:27 -0600 From: Brian Atkins To: transhumantech Subject: [tt] Promising compound restores memory loss and reverses symptoms of Alzheimer's (in mice) http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2013-01/foas-pcr010213.php Promising compound restores memory loss and reverses symptoms of Alzheimer's New research in the FASEB Journal by NIH scientists suggests that a small molecule called TFP5 rescues plaques and tangles by blocking an overactive brain signal, thereby restoring memory in mice with Alzheimer's A new ray of hope has broken through the clouded outcomes associated with Alzheimer's disease. A new research report published in January 2013 print issue of the FASEB Journal by scientists from the National Institutes of Health shows that when a molecule called TFP5 is injected into mice with disease that is the equivalent of human Alzheimer's, symptoms are reversed and memory is restored--without obvious toxic side effects. "We hope that clinical trial studies in AD patients should yield an extended and a better quality of life as observed in mice upon TFP5 treatment," said Harish C. Pant, Ph.D., a senior researcher involved in the work from the Laboratory of Neurochemistry at the National Institute of Neurological Disorders at Stroke at the National Institutes of Health in Bethesda, MD. "Therefore, we suggest that TFP5 should be an effective therapeutic compound." To make this discovery, Pant and colleagues used mice with a disease considered the equivalent of Alzheimer's. One set of these mice were injected with the small molecule TFP5, while the other was injected with saline as placebo. The mice, after a series of intraperitoneal injections of TFP5, displayed a substantial reduction in the various disease symptoms along with restoration of memory loss. In addition, the mice receiving TFP5 injections experienced no weight loss, neurological stress (anxiety) or signs of toxicity. The disease in the placebo mice, however, progressed normally as expected. TFP5 was derived from the regulator of a key brain enzyme, called Cdk5. The over activation of Cdk5 is implicated in the formation of plaques and tangles, the major hallmark of Alzheimer's disease. "The next step is to find out if this molecule can have the same effects in people, and if not, to find out which molecule will," said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of the FASEB Journal. "Now that we know that we can target the basic molecular defects in Alzheimer's disease, we can hope for treatments far better - and more specific - than anything we have today." ### Receive monthly highlights from the FASEB Journal by e-mail. Sign up at http://www.faseb.org/fjupdate.aspx. The FASEB Journal is published by the Federation of the American Societies for Experimental Biology (FASEB). It is among the most cited biology journals worldwide according to the Institute for Scientific Information and has been recognized by the Special Libraries Association as one of the top 100 most influential biomedical journals of the past century. FASEB is composed of 26 societies with more than 100,000 members, making it the largest coalition of biomedical research associations in the United States. Celebrating 100 Years of Advancing the Life Sciences in 2012, FASEB is rededicating its efforts to advance health and well-being by promoting progress and education in biological and biomedical sciences through service to our member societies and collaborative advocacy. Varsha Shukla, Ya-Li Zheng, Santosh K. Mishra, Niranjana D. Amin, Joseph Steiner, Philip Grant, Sashi Kesavapany, and Harish C. Pant. A truncated peptide from p35, a Cdk5 activator, prevents Alzheimer's disease phenotypes in model mice. FASEB J. January 2013 27:174-186; doi:10.1096/fj.12-217497; http://www.fasebj.org/content/27/1/174.abstract _______________________________________________ tt mailing list tt at postbiota.org http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/tt From scerir at alice.it Thu Jan 3 18:52:33 2013 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 19:52:33 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A paranormal prediction for the next year In-Reply-To: References: <50E2E228.4030003@aleph.se> Message-ID: <00DD1A3924C14100869846184624B5DE@PCserafino> > Yea..... 'exciting' in the same way that faster than light travel would be. > Time travel and breaking causality would indeed be 'exciting'! > BillK Ted Bastin (as reported by H. Pierre Noyes [ 1 ]) proposed a definition of the paranormal. He started with the proposition that paranormal phenomena show no dependence on space and time. He then coupled this to his further assumption that current physics begins with space and time. These two propositions in conjunction make a clash with normal science inevitable. That current physics begins with space and time seems to me a bit uncertain now. [ 2 ] [ 1 ] SCIENCE and PARANORMAL PHENOMENA H. Pierre Noyes Stanford Linear Accelerator Center Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94309 http://cds.cern.ch/record/404491/files/9906014.pdf [ 2 ] http://arxiv.org/abs/1110.3795 http://arxiv.org/abs/0912.1475 http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7308 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0311004 http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0205182 From ablainey at aol.com Fri Jan 4 01:15:01 2013 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 20:15:01 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] AI through human homogeny? In-Reply-To: <00DD1A3924C14100869846184624B5DE@PCserafino> References: <50E2E228.4030003@aleph.se> <00DD1A3924C14100869846184624B5DE@PCserafino> Message-ID: <8CFB8300DC8E3BB-2194-605B@webmail-d127.sysops.aol.com> Just watched an odd foreign film called "1". The basic outline is that a rare bookshop suddenly and instantly has all its stock replaced with copies of a mysterious book entitled "1". By unknown author, unknown publisher. The book is a snapshot of all human life in one minute. All life, death etc condensed into exact statistics rather than estimates. Not a great film. An mildly interesting story. What it sparked in me was an idea on what could really be achieved by the colation of just one minute of human life on Earth? Accounting for 7B people if you could record just one minute of their experience that makes around 221.816 years worth of life experience. From every aspect of humanity, every culture, place, time of day and night. Life, death, sex (32.4 Million people at anyone time quoted in the film), food, the mundane, the ordinary, extraordinary and the bizarre. What would happen if you could feed all that data into an AI to create a homogenous blend of all humanity? Would it yield a balanced personality? What kind of effect might all the "sleepers" have? The dreams, day dreams, hallucinations and psychosis? What about the time and day we chose to record. For example I imagine the sum of all human experience on 9/11 is very different to xmas day or other days which have significant global impact. I think the notion that it would have an almost uninterrupted multi-viewpoint experience of the entire planet is very interesting. Seeing all things, conversations and events from all sides and many different angles. Just being able to experience then understand an argument from each side is a very enwisening (???) thing. Something which becomes pivotal in our personality evolution. Something any parent knows when they catch themself telling their own kids the same thing they were told many years before. I think this kind of snapshot of humanity could really sum up what it is to be human very nicely. It should capture pretty much the entire spectrum of what we are. Maybe all of it and a few things we havn't figured out yet? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mrjones2020 at gmail.com Thu Jan 3 23:25:54 2013 From: mrjones2020 at gmail.com (J.R. Jones) Date: Thu, 3 Jan 2013 18:25:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Unilateralist In-Reply-To: References: <50D82DFA.3060505@aleph.se> <50DC1364.3040900@aleph.se> <50DD80FF.5010305@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Fri, Dec 28, 2012 at 9:51 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > How does one prove they should or should not be included into this > circle of trust? > An essay. > > What does it take for a friend of mine to become a friend of ours? - > or as you expressed, a mutually-tolerated via transitivity candidate > with differing values become a mutually-tolerated epistemic peer with > differing values? > They've got to be heading the same direction. We can work out the best route to get there. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Fri Jan 4 08:48:50 2013 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 04 Jan 2013 09:48:50 +0100 Subject: [ExI] AI through human homogeny? In-Reply-To: <8CFB8300DC8E3BB-2194-605B@webmail-d127.sysops.aol.com> References: <50E2E228.4030003@aleph.se> <00DD1A3924C14100869846184624B5DE@PCserafino> <8CFB8300DC8E3BB-2194-605B@webmail-d127.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <50E69772.5000702@aleph.se> On 2013-01-04 02:15, ablainey at aol.com wrote: > The book is a snapshot of all human life in one minute. All life, death > etccondensed into exact statistics rather than estimates. Not a great > film. An mildly interesting story. Sounds like an adaptation on of Stanislaw Lem's "One human minute" http://english.lem.pl/works/apocryphs/one-human-minute > What it sparked in me was an idea on what could really be achieved by > the colation of just one minute of human life on Earth? > Accounting for 7B people if you could record just one minute of their > experience that makes around 221.816 years worth of life experience. > From every aspect of humanity, every culture, place, time of day and > night. Life, death, sex (32.4 Million people at anyone time quoted in > the film), food, the mundane, the ordinary, extraordinary and the > bizarre. What would happen if you could feed all that data into an AIto > create a homogenous blend of all humanity? > Would it yield a balanced personality? You mean taking their sensory and mental experience and then using it to ground the AI? It would be about 799,086 yeas of experience: I think that would be more than enough to ground an AI into understanding humans quite well. > What kind of effect mightall the "sleepers" have? The dreams, day > dreams, hallucinations and psychosis? A smart algorithm will figure it out, since there are plenty of references in the waking states to what sleep is and what it does. So I think the AI would believe in "there is an objective world, where people occasionally go to sleep and dream" over "the world is a subjective mess, but a lot of people share the same dream of a 'waking world'" since the latter is rather inconsistent and requires a far longer description string (essentially a list of all random dreamworlds plus the waking world). > I think this kind of snapshot of humanity could really sumup what it is > to be human very nicely. It should capture pretty much the entire > spectrum of what we are. Maybe all of it and a few things we havn't > figured out yet? Surely. I think as we move into the world of not just Big Data but also Big Sensing we are going to get ever more impressive snapshots of the world and ourselves to learn from. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford University From rtomek at ceti.pl Fri Jan 4 22:45:52 2013 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 23:45:52 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] Friday, Lem "The Puzzle" is online Message-ID: Howdy, >From this page [ http://english.lem.pl/home/news ] a quote: "The Puzzle" Vice Magazine published the first English translation of Lem's "Zagadka" ("The Puzzle"); this story is illustrated by Sophia Foster-Dimino, the co-author of the Lem-Doodle. The full text of "The Puzzle" is available here. [ http://www.vice.com/read/a-puzzle-0000320-v19n9 ] (There is an ad below the robot, so if you don't want to buy Solaris, don't look there - or maybe look there, whatever) 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 ablainey at aol.com Sat Jan 5 01:28:21 2013 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 20:28:21 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] AI through human homogeny? In-Reply-To: <50E69772.5000702@aleph.se> References: <50E2E228.4030003@aleph.se> <00DD1A3924C14100869846184624B5DE@PCserafino> <8CFB8300DC8E3BB-2194-605B@webmail-d127.sysops.aol.com> <50E69772.5000702@aleph.se> Message-ID: <8CFB8FB157BAB17-A60-D096@webmail-d130.sysops.aol.com> -----Original Message----- From: Anders Sandberg >Sounds like an adaptation on of Stanislaw Lem's "One human minute">http://english.lem.pl/works/apocryphs/one-human-minute Yes looks like it may be the basis of the film. >You mean taking their sensory and mental experience and then using it to >ground the AI? It would be about 799,086 yeas of experience: I think >that would be more than enough to ground an AI into understanding humans >quite well. Yes. My bad the BOE calculation was mistakenly for one second, not one minute. 800k years would surely be plenty enough! For argument sake if it were the 1 second equivalent experience of 200+ years. This seemed like a fairly nice figure for me as roughly 50% of humanity in the dataset would be asleep giving roughly one human lifetime of 100 years (although that doesn't account for sleep in that single lifespan, so really its two lifetimes) >Surely. I think as we move into the world of not just Big Data but also >Big Sensing we are going to get ever more impressive snapshots of the >world and ourselves to learn from. No doubt. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ablainey at aol.com Sat Jan 5 02:32:28 2013 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 21:32:28 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] Lem, solaris & PSI In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8CFB9040A59F6FC-A60-D425@webmail-d130.sysops.aol.com> Odd that you posted this. Must I assume it was from some googlepath wandering from the mention of Lem in Ander's post to my thread about "1"? Here is the "bake your noodle" bit, call the comfy wagon to take me to a comfy white room. I had a powerful lucid dream a few decades ago of a luminous blue world floating in space. A place suspended in the abyss and where I traveled unbound by shape or form. I drifted through the pale energetic clouds of plasma and sparks interacting with the energy. It had consciousness which I shared as we melded through one another. Not a single entity per se, instead incalculable number of minds each distinct yet each partly merging into a singular whole. Like clouds of energy passing through each other, each with separate will and mind but all an inseparable part of the whole. As I drifted I can only describe encounters of myself with these others as a "cool embrace" A coolness that was felt through to the core like the comforting heat of a warm hug. The same comforting envelopment yet the exact opposite thermal sensation. At the same time a willing sharing of minds, consciousness, knowledge and wisdom. Accompanying these discrete and constant and what I can only describe as selfless platonic-loving encounters there was a constant awareness of the whole entity created by the mass. There was a sense of safety, belonging, understanding of everything and above all a sense of home. It was something of a profound life changing experience. Which came from nowhere, wasn't prompted by any exposure to fiction or deep theological thought the night before or even a large quantity of cheese. It just happened and I awoke stunned by it. Some years later I was channel hopping and came across a film about to start that I hadn't seen. It was Solaris. I instantly recognised the visuals of the world as that I had seen in the dream. While this was the remake and the plot is somewhat deviant from Lem's vision, It was without doubt the same single energetic super entity comprised of multiple beings that I had experienced. I later watched the original film and while both have the essence of the place, they are obvious cinematic interpretations. I have always believed that we do share some level of single consciousness which is exhibited now and again in PSI. Although we appear to be exceptionally bad at utilising any such ability. The way I have rationalised it is that my dream, Lem's vision and various other similar accounts are probably the basis for the religious "oneness" or God. In my case It could perhaps easily be explained away by some kind of hypoxic episode during sleep??? Whatever the cause, It was truly profound. Looking back that was a point where I found a certain calmness in my self that had been missing. -----Original Message----- From: Tomasz Rola Sent: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 22:55 Howdy, >From this page [ http://english.lem.pl/home/news ] a quote: "The Puzzle" Vice Magazine published the first English translation of Lem's "Zagadka" ("The Puzzle"); this story is illustrated by Sophia Foster-Dimino, the co-author of the Lem-Doodle. The full text of "The Puzzle" is available here. [ http://www.vice.com/read/a-puzzle-0000320-v19n9 ] (There is an ad below the robot, so if you don't want to buy Solaris, don't look there - or maybe look there, whatever) Regards, Tomasz Rola -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Jan 5 02:42:18 2013 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 21:42:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] AI through human homogeny? In-Reply-To: References: <50E2E228.4030003@aleph.se> <00DD1A3924C14100869846184624B5DE@PCserafino> <8CFB8300DC8E3BB-2194-605B@webmail-d127.sysops.aol.com> <50E69772.5000702@aleph.se> <8CFB8FB157BAB17-A60-D096@webmail-d130.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: Sorry for top-posting. My phone does it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rtomek at ceti.pl Sat Jan 5 03:35:54 2013 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 04:35:54 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] Lem, solaris & PSI In-Reply-To: <8CFB9040A59F6FC-A60-D425@webmail-d130.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CFB9040A59F6FC-A60-D425@webmail-d130.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Fri, 4 Jan 2013, ablainey at aol.com wrote: > Odd that you posted this. Must I assume it was from some googlepath > wandering from the mention of Lem in Ander's post to my thread about > "1"? Yes. I knew the site before, even wrote some on their forums (as Setaur Saves if you're interested). But it's ages since I was there, so when Anders gave a link I felt an urgent need to poke around... It is a place worth poking, plenty of nice graphics (if one likes such stuff, of course) etc. > Here is the "bake your noodle" bit, call the comfy wagon to take me > to a comfy white room. I had a powerful lucid dream a few decades ago of > a luminous blue world floating in space. Mhm... I don't know what is this business of "baking my noodles". It sounds soo painful. Maybe I'd like mine unbaked? Actually, you guys keep your hands off my noodles, will you. > A place suspended in the abyss > and where I traveled unbound by shape or form. I drifted through the > pale energetic clouds of plasma and sparks interacting with the energy. > It had consciousness which I shared as we melded through one another. > Not a single entity per se, instead incalculable number of minds each > distinct yet each partly merging into a singular whole. Like clouds of > energy passing through each other, each with separate will and mind but > all an inseparable part of the whole. As I drifted I can only describe > encounters of myself with these others as a "cool embrace" A coolness > that was felt through to the core like the comforting heat of a warm > hug. The same comforting envelopment yet the exact opposite thermal > sensation. At the same time a willing sharing of minds, consciousness, > knowledge and wisdom. Accompanying these discrete and constant and what > I can only describe as selfless platonic-loving encounters there was a > constant awareness of the whole entity created by the mass. There was a > sense of safety, belonging, understanding of everything and above all a > sense of home. It was something of a profound life changing experience. > Which came from nowhere, wasn't prompted by any exposure to fiction or > deep theological thought the night before or even a large quantity of > cheese. It just happened and I awoke stunned by it. > > Some years later I was channel hopping and came across a film about to > start that I hadn't seen. It was Solaris. I instantly recognised the > visuals of the world as that I had seen in the dream. While this was the > remake and the plot is somewhat deviant from Lem's vision, It was > without doubt the same single energetic super entity comprised of > multiple beings that I had experienced. I later watched the original > film and while both have the essence of the place, they are obvious > cinematic interpretations. > > I have always believed that we do share some level of single > consciousness which is exhibited now and again in PSI. Although we > appear to be exceptionally bad at utilising any such ability. The way I > have rationalised it is that my dream, Lem's vision and various other > similar accounts are probably the basis for the religious "oneness" or > God. In my case It could perhaps easily be explained away by some kind > of hypoxic episode during sleep??? Whatever the cause, It was truly > profound. Looking back that was a point where I found a certain calmness > in my self that had been missing. This was quite interesting, thanks for sharing. I wouldn't call for ambulance for you. On the other hand, I am not much into PSI and similar things - I mean, compared to some folks I consider myself open to such phenomena, but in a manner that I am not going to judge them in either way before I am able to research. And as you know, PSI is very elusive when it comes to research. At least this is what I heard. What you have seen could have happened exclusively in your head... ...or you could have made a false memory of this episode after learning about Solaris (from what I have heard such things happen, maybe more frequently than we would like to acknowledge, we are definitely not masters of our reasoning, we just ride on it like on a wild angry bull, and some of us realise this enough to pray to stay in a saddle for a while)... ...or, who knows, maybe a being so potent as to form a planet-sized brain found a way to explore space, time-space perhaps, by the force of its mind? For some this may sound as gobbledygook, for me this sounds like a hypothesis extremely hard to prove or disprove, so I couldn't dismiss it just because "the book does not say so" (rather than deciding right now, I put such hypotheses on a shelve, where they wait, maybe forever, until I gather some more facts). Well, what actually is force of such planetary mind? Could it make streams of particles by shaping its dreaming (which is, maybe, modulated radiation, EM waves, plus quantum effects which I am unable to name)? The idea is not mine, it comes from another Lem's book, Golem XIV. There are two AIs in it, Honest Annie and Golem XIV, and HA is a bit indifferent about humanity while Golem seems to feel kind of sympathy to us, or at least towards those of us who resemble Lem (by education, not by bald head) :-). So, it happened some junkies decided to blow up HA, but Annie decided otherwise, and the freaks had all kind of misfortunes and accidents. They never made it, of course. Their car blew up, there was fire in a garage, and so on. And only then some people realised what was at stake (only some people had access to this information). Anyway, I want to draw a picture - we only know that we really don't know too much. So what was your experience - I really have no idea. Too many explanations, not enough data. On a bright side, be happy - maybe a copy of yours is uploaded "there" and enjoys marvels of Universe :-). Pity IT took a copy from you, but when it came to sharing, whatever IT shared, IT took away before hanging up. Heh. Smart-ass planetary sized bastard IT is... 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 steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Jan 5 02:41:49 2013 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 4 Jan 2013 21:41:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] AI through human homogeny? In-Reply-To: <8CFB8FB157BAB17-A60-D096@webmail-d130.sysops.aol.com> References: <50E2E228.4030003@aleph.se> <00DD1A3924C14100869846184624B5DE@PCserafino> <8CFB8300DC8E3BB-2194-605B@webmail-d127.sysops.aol.com> <50E69772.5000702@aleph.se> <8CFB8FB157BAB17-A60-D096@webmail-d130.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: The AI already exists by necessity, it is called Gaia and its thoughtforms are inaccessible to us, for we are their fibers. On Jan 4, 2013 8:30 PM, wrote: > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Anders Sandberg > > >Sounds like an adaptation on of Stanislaw Lem's "One human minute" > > http://english.lem.pl/works/apocryphs/one-human-minute > > Yes looks like it may be the basis of the film. > > >You mean taking their sensory and mental experience and then using it to > >ground the AI? It would be about 799,086 yeas of experience: I think > >that would be more than enough to ground an AI into understanding humans > >quite well. > > Yes. My bad the BOE calculation was mistakenly for one second, not one minute. 800k years would surely be plenty enough! > For argument sake if it were the 1 second equivalent experience of 200+ years. This seemed like a fairly nice figure for me as roughly 50% of humanity in the dataset would be asleep > > giving roughly one human lifetime of 100 years (although that doesn't account for sleep in that single lifespan, so really its two lifetimes) > >Surely. I think as we move into the world of not just Big Data but also >Big Sensing we are going to get ever more impressive snapshots of the > >world and ourselves to learn from. > No doubt. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 anders at aleph.se Sat Jan 5 06:30:40 2013 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 05 Jan 2013 07:30:40 +0100 Subject: [ExI] AI through human homogeny? In-Reply-To: References: <50E2E228.4030003@aleph.se> <00DD1A3924C14100869846184624B5DE@PCserafino> <8CFB8300DC8E3BB-2194-605B@webmail-d127.sysops.aol.com> <50E69772.5000702@aleph.se> <8CFB8FB157BAB17-A60-D096@webmail-d130.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: <50E7C890.6020804@aleph.se> On 05/01/2013 03:41, Will Steinberg wrote: > > The AI already exists by necessity, it is called Gaia and its > thoughtforms are inaccessible to us, for we are their fibers. > That is not certain. By the above claim, employees (or CEOs) of corporations would be unable to know what their organisation is "thinking". While this no doubt happens, it is not a necessary state. Consider the man in the Chinese Room thought experiment: he could actually happen to understand the mechanisms around him (including knowing Chinese and translation theory!) He might not be able to take in the full bandwidth of what the room is "thinking", but he could understand parts of its activity. This is more obvious when considering a simpler case, like doing numeric calculations by hand. There is also the question whether Gaia is thinking in any deep sense. The universe is thinking since it contains thinking subsets and information flows between different parts, but I think it is a stretch to say that it is doing any cognition. Gaia is the same: there doesn't seem to be any feedbacks so far that are more easily explained as top-level activities than the result of the parts (compare that to a human, whose behavior is much easier to explain in terms of a mind with goals than a bundle of neuron interactions). Those who think there are regulatory top level processes should check out Ward's "The Medea Hypothesis" for some counterexamples. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Jan 5 16:42:52 2013 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 11:42:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] how large is a human mind? In-Reply-To: <50E2DE6A.3040908@aleph.se> References: <50E2DE6A.3040908@aleph.se> Message-ID: Overall a very reasonable estimate, Anders, some objections below: On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 8:02 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Now if (say) 25% of cortical synapses are individually located, that means > around 3.75e13 synapses. ### My hunch is that the number of truly individually located synapses is much lower than 25%. Think about the structure of your memories: try to remember the earliest memory of your life. In my case this is a story about being scared of a pig while vacationing with parents on a farm, at age 2. There is a vague impression of dread, a ghost of a memory of brick farm buildings, impending doom, impression of mud being around. This can be constructed from generic mental imagery. Even our love and hate experiences are run on more or less generic neural structures, with predictable behavioral correlates - what is individual are the triggers. I remember reading the article about single neuron activity having a behavioral correlate, it is excellent. But this single neuron is in this case located in a very generic cortical area - one devoted to analysis of data from whisker movements. I would guess that if you grafted the barrel field from one rat brain to another, suitably connecting the long range projections, the acceptor rat would not be much changed in its overall behavior, even though it would still react to single neurons in the graft. Most of the bulk of our brain consists of areas that are devoted to low-level analysis - I am talking about the primary and secondary sensory cortices, motor and premotor cortices, the insula, the cerebellum. I would contend that most if not all of the circuitry there is used for representations of fragments of experience that are almost identical among most humans. Right now I am sitting at a computer in a log home in the forest, looking out on hills through a large picture window, with the sun barely clearing the hilltops and nary a cloud in sight -a nice view, but certainly something experienced before by millions of people. This view is built of millions of hierarchically organized pieces, from single bits of data in the retina, through color conjured up by the fusiform gyrus, to concepts recognized in the parietal cortex. The pattern recognizers responsible for this experience react predictably to commonly detected patterns, and we know that from a large body of neuroscience research. Various humans asked about their subjective experiences after being placed where I am now would converge on essentially identical narratives. These identical narratives produced from different pattern recognizers that predictably react to stimuli imply that the recognizers are functionally equivalent. Since there are hundreds of millions of humans who already had experiences very similar to mine, you could most likely use representative examples of their pattern recognizers to replicate my subjective experience, with only a sprinkling of links to my life history needed to modify these generic thoughts. Since most of my life history is made of fragments identical to what others have lived through, a reasonable facsimile of this history could be built of a thin tracery of links between generic mental images. It is likely that using data exclusively from an individual synapse mapping project would produce the most accurate representation of an individual's experience but I doubt that the accuracy gain over generic imagery would be large. Certainly I would be willing to accept some degradation of my memories to save a few orders of magnitude on storage costs. Every day we forget about a day's worth of memories, stretching an ever thinner veil of a story over an ever longer span of time. Furthermore, we keep changing and embellishing the stories of our lives, so the narrative is in a slow but constant flux. Using generic recognizers would allow me to maintain much brighter, more detailed mental images of my past at a lower storage cost, and the mild distortions introduced by generic imagery would not be different in size from the distortions my memory keeps introducing on its own. So my guess is that I would be satisfied with being represented by less than 1% of my individual synapse count, with the rest contributed by commercially available, off the shelf memories/mental modules. Maybe I could stuff myself onto the hard drive of my laptop, if I really cut all fluff out. Of course, YMMV. ------------------------ > The cost of storing and running a mind does not depend on absolute size but > relative size and demand. If a mind requires m units of resources and M > units are available, and there are N minds, we should expect the cost to be > some increasing function of mN/M, likely concave (prices go way up when the > M-brain is crowded to capacity). So we can model it as price = (mN/M)^a, > where a>1. If the value of a mind is on average V, we should expect more > minds being made until (mN/M)^a=V, or N=(M/m)V^(1/a). So the big determinant > might be V and a, M/m just sets the scale. ### As you say, the relative size would matter but I would claim the main determinants of survival would be size and value (V/m) compared to competing minds, not compared to total available resources (M). A mind with a higher V/m (squeezing higher utility out of less GBytes+Tflops) would be more likely, ceteris paribus, to be copied and run than other minds. Rafal > > > > -- > Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford University > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD Senior Scientist, Gencia Corporation 706 B Forest St. Charlottesville, VA 22903 tel: (434) 295-4800 fax: (434) 295-4951 This electronic message transmission contains information from the biotechnology firm of Gencia Corporation which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (434-295-4800) or by electronic mail (fportell at genciabiotech.com) immediately. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Jan 5 17:39:31 2013 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 5 Jan 2013 12:39:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] how large is a human mind? In-Reply-To: <8CFB69AC77A4CDC-1AA8-68163@Webmail-d120.sysops.aol.com> References: <8CFB69AC77A4CDC-1AA8-68163@Webmail-d120.sysops.aol.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 7:53 PM, wrote: > I wouldn't agree. While we both know what "dogs" are and can converse > meaningfully about dogs, the personal experiences and subsequent neural > pathways that have been constructed in order to create the Dog recognisers > will be very different. ### Well, when you saw a dachshund, a few million recognizers fired, running analyses mostly at low levels (lines, colors, basic shapes), with a small number of higher level recognizers (dog, animal, mammal, mine, beloved) being active as well. You had a personal experience but the grunt work of creating it was done by recognizers that predictably fire in response to common fragments of human experience. You could rewire each one of them completely, yet as long as the rewired versions still reacted to the same inputs with the same outputs, your experience would not change. When exposed to the sight of a dachshund both your and my neural pathways will produce the same general story (brown, longish, moving, animal), plus some individual details (when you saw your first dachshund or if you like them), and this implies that the parts of our brains devoted to seeing dogs are similar on the conceptual level, even though the individual patterns of synapses in recognizers that generate the story are completely different. It is similar to noting that the exact patterns of dopant atom distribution in the millions of transistors in our computers are completely different, yet the transistors themselves are highly reproducible and replaceable - they predictably react to common inputs. Just as you can take a processor from my iphone and put it in yours, you should be able to take the highly idiosyncratic recognizers from your V1 cortex and put them into mine with no difference in my subjective experience, as long as you wire the inputs and outputs correctly. ------------------ > So an average storage value + ?% allowing for individual difference may be > sufficient for each recogniser? ### The higher you go in the conceptual hierarchy of the brain, the more individual percentage in the recognizers: from near 0% in primary sensory and motor cortices to much higher percentages in the highest order areas. Rafal From lubkin at unreasonable.com Sun Jan 6 23:38:03 2013 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 18:38:03 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Radiation in DC Message-ID: <201301070033.r070XRjb002457@andromeda.ziaspace.com> This makes sense: Establish a radiation baseline so you can detect what's abnormal. Would you want such a survey done nationwide? Would you want the results made public and mashable into a Google Maps overlay? Or would you be more concerned about what the black hats could do with the data? -- David. From spike66 at att.net Mon Jan 7 00:53:06 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2013 16:53:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Radiation in DC In-Reply-To: <201301070033.r070XRjb002457@andromeda.ziaspace.com> References: <201301070033.r070XRjb002457@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <008901cdec71$5b6cf7e0$1246e7a0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of David Lubkin Subject: [ExI] Radiation in DC >... >...This makes sense: Establish a radiation baseline so you can detect what's abnormal. -- David. _______________________________________________ David I think this wasn't your point or your question, but when I read the article, the first thing I thought of is why the heck would they need a helicopter to do something like that? Choppers are noisy, expensive and relatively dangerous. If they are buzzing around at 150 feet and 80 knots, just use a good old cheapy Cessna high-wing: a tenth the initial price and less than a tenth the per-hour operation cost, make a lot less racket and attract less attention. When we see a helicopter doing anything, we immediately recognize it as our tax dollars at play. It does make us realize that in the event of sequestration, the government still has *plenty* of room to cut this kind of foolishness out of the budget without seriously harming any actual legitimate government function. spike From lubkin at unreasonable.com Mon Jan 7 02:07:31 2013 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2013 21:07:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Radiation in DC In-Reply-To: <008901cdec71$5b6cf7e0$1246e7a0$@att.net> References: <201301070033.r070XRjb002457@andromeda.ziaspace.com> <008901cdec71$5b6cf7e0$1246e7a0$@att.net> Message-ID: <201301070207.r0727mX4004356@andromeda.ziaspace.com> Spike wrote: >David I think this wasn't your point or your question, but when I read the >article, the first thing I thought of is why the heck would they need a >helicopter to do something like that? Choppers are noisy, expensive and >relatively dangerous. If they are buzzing around at 150 feet and 80 knots, >just use a good old cheapy Cessna high-wing: a tenth the initial price and >less than a tenth the per-hour operation cost, make a lot less racket and >attract less attention. When we see a helicopter doing anything, we >immediately recognize it as our tax dollars at play. The answer could either be government squander or that what CBS reported is cover for what the flights actually were for, which might be "look at us, look at us, and not at this other thing we're doing." Teasing out what's actually going on often resembles Fezzik's analysis of which goblet has the iocaine powder. -- David. From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 09:50:22 2013 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 01:50:22 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] (no subject) Message-ID: <1357638622.74674.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> http://www.stadtsoldaten-buchholz.de/tmp/dspvs.php -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jan 8 10:27:29 2013 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 10:27:29 +0000 Subject: [ExI] (no subject) In-Reply-To: <1357638622.74674.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1357638622.74674.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:50 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: > http://www.stadtsoldaten-buchholz.de/tmp/dspvs.php > > _______________________________________________ Oh, Oh! Looks like avantguardian has been infected by a spam virus, sending ads to exi-chat and people in his contact list. The German site has been hacked with a page that links to a diet pills spam page. Time for anti-virus cleanup project. BillK From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Jan 8 12:14:16 2013 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 04:14:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] extropy-chat Digest, Vol 112, Issue 10 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is not good, looks like someone lost control of their email. On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 4:00 AM, wrote: > Send extropy-chat mailing list submissions to > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > extropy-chat-owner at lists.extropy.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of extropy-chat digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. (no subject) (The Avantguardian) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 01:50:22 -0800 (PST) > From: The Avantguardian > To: morphy at alumni.caltech.edu, spike66 at comcast.net, > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org, uberbub at yahoo.com, > stuart.laforge at gmail.com, jef at jefallbright.net, > Ana.OrtegaLopez at cshs.org, lucedique at yahoo.com, amara at amara.com > Subject: [ExI] (no subject) > Message-ID: > <1357638622.74674.YahooMailNeo at web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > http://www.stadtsoldaten-buc hholz.de/tmp/dspvs.php > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > End of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 112, Issue 10 > ********************************************* From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Tue Jan 8 14:16:39 2013 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 06:16:39 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Apologies was Re: (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: <1357638622.74674.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1357654599.33061.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> ? ----- Original Message ----- > From: BillK > To: The Avantguardian ; ExI chat list > Cc: > Sent: Tuesday, January 8, 2013 2:27 AM > Subject: Re: [ExI] (no subject) > > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 9:50 AM, The Avantguardian wrote: >> http://www.stadtsoldaten-buchholz.de/tmp/dspvs.php >> >> _______________________________________________ > > > Oh, Oh! Looks like avantguardian has been infected by a spam virus, > sending ads to exi-chat and people in his contact list. > > The German site has been hacked with a page that links to a diet pills > spam page. > > Time for anti-virus cleanup project. My apologies to Bill and anyone affected by this incident. It is a curious situation. The spam emails occured while my computer was off ( I got a bunch of failure notices from Yahoo's mailer daemon and recieved the spam to my other email accounts since I email things to myself fairly regularly.) A short while ago, I ran both Malaware Bytes and Avast and neither program found anything (I was looking for keyloggers or other spyware ?that could have compromised my Yahoo account?since an active local infection of my computer was hopefully ruled out by the computer being off.) Both scans came back negative. I am therefore operating under the assumption that the security breach was on Yahoo's end and changed my account password and retrieval information. If Bill or anyone else has any further advice, I am open to suggestions. Stuart LaForge ?The future starts today, not tomorrow.?- Karol J?zef Wojtyla From spike66 at att.net Tue Jan 8 15:14:45 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 07:14:45 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Apologies was Re: (no subject) In-Reply-To: <1357654599.33061.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1357638622.74674.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1357654599.33061.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003301cdedb2$e52ff760$af8fe620$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of The Avantguardian >... > > Time for anti-virus cleanup project. >...My apologies to Bill and anyone affected by this incident. It is a curious situation... If Bill or anyone else has any further advice, I am open to suggestions. Stuart LaForge _______________________________________________ Thanks Avant. The users on this list are generally sufficiently hip to know that whenever we get a message from a friend with no subject line and only a link, it must be bogus. I feel better knowing that if I get in trouble, I have a group of computer hipsters to consult right here. Another thought, perhaps wishful thinking: when I get these kinds of posts I am reminded we are apparently generally winning the war on spam. About 10 yrs ago it seems half my inbox was some sort of spam. Now it is less than 5 percent, and even those which get through are only those in which I have specified the sender as a never-block. Most everyone on ExI-chat is specified in my spam filters as never-blocks, which is why I saw this link from Stuart. Idea: spam filters should have an auto-post that goes to any address one specifies as a never block. That would be the email counterpart to Facebook's friending. That being said, I sometimes get the urge to get a bullhorn and go over to Menlo Park, stand outside the headquarters and explain to the silly goofs that the term friend is a NOUN not a verb. Those annoying proles have made my job harder in teaching my own son about the nuances of language. We do not friend a friend, we befriend a friend. By flatly refusing to wade into the memetic tarpit which is Facebook and use only email, then our never-blocking an address is how we electronically befriend a friend. spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Jan 8 14:48:19 2013 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 15:48:19 +0100 Subject: [ExI] uploads again In-Reply-To: <50DAD1DF.8070701@aleph.se> References: <004901cddf97$f8afd0e0$ea0f72a0$@att.net> <50D4B9D2.2020104@aleph.se> <007601cddfc7$b9ec9cf0$2dc5d6d0$@att.net> <8CFADF3E7CB657F-1EF4-40452@webmail-d011.sysops.aol.com> <50D567BF.9070006@aleph.se> <50D7279A.1000206@aleph.se> <50D8B3A4.8070108@aleph.se> <50DAD1DF.8070701@aleph.se> Message-ID: On 26 December 2012 11:30, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Setting values of minds is a very weighty moral action, and should not be > done willy-nilly. (Tell that to parents!) > Of course, very intelligent computers would not have "values" per se any more than very powerful energy plants. OTOH, we can of course play with anthropomorphic or zoomorphic emulations (of existing, past, or patchwork/artificial individuals) which *would* exhibit a facsimile of agency, motivations, etc., to arbitrary degrees of persuasiveness, and in such event would behave like your everyday Darwinian agents. In that case, the idea of making it "structurally" and "eternally" slave of and/or sympathetic with a given moral system or set of goals sounds ludicrous, for the same reasons that this does not appear neither possible nor desirable for biological agents. I have yet to hear arguments, however, showing that any special "danger" would exist in doing so that it is not just included in a heterogenous system represented by a mind upload or by a biological brain in a vat connected with the appropriate peripherals and co-processors or by an full-fledged human with an equivalent computing power at his or her fingertips. I suspect that the fears in this respect can essentially be deconstrued as a secularisation of the humanist Golem myth, where concepts such as "us", humanity, humankind, friendliness are taken acritically and never consistently and explicitely clarified as to their scope and/or assumed importance. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jan 8 17:03:22 2013 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 17:03:22 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Apologies was Re: (no subject) In-Reply-To: <1357654599.33061.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1357638622.74674.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1357654599.33061.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > My apologies to Bill and anyone affected by this incident. It is a curious situation. The spam emails > occured while my computer was off ( I got a bunch of failure notices from Yahoo's mailer daemon > and recieved the spam to my other email accounts since I email things to myself fairly regularly.) > A short while ago, I ran both Malaware Bytes and Avast and neither program found anything > (I was looking for keyloggers or other spyware that could have compromised my Yahoo account > since an active local infection of my computer was hopefully ruled out by the computer being off.) > Both scans came back negative. I am therefore operating under the assumption that the security > breach was on Yahoo's end and changed my account password and retrieval information. > If Bill or anyone else has any further advice, I am open to suggestions. > That sounds fine to me. If changing your Yahoo password stops the spam then Yahoo was the source. That doesn't mean that Yahoo was necessarily at fault. Your mail password could have been guessed or obtained by some other method, e.g. in an internet cafe or on a public wifi link. Cheers, BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Jan 8 14:24:51 2013 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 15:24:51 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The pope vs transhumanism In-Reply-To: <50D981F5.2080400@aleph.se> References: <50D981F5.2080400@aleph.se> Message-ID: On 25 December 2012 11:37, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Isn't it nice to have a high status, well-read and consistent enemy to > fight against? > Indeed it is... :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Tue Jan 8 19:03:31 2013 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 14:03:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Apologies was Re: (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: <1357638622.74674.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1357654599.33061.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 12:03 PM, BillK wrote: > Your mail > password could have been guessed or obtained by some other method, > e.g. in an internet cafe or on a public wifi link. Or he could have used the same password on another site that was unscrupulous or compromised. I recommend using something like LastPass (free) to store your passwords securely and to generate new, strong passwords. They also have Security Challenge, which audits your passwords highlights problems like weak passwords and shared passwords. Also, Google Authenticator is way more secure than reusable passwords. -Dave From alfio.puglisi at gmail.com Tue Jan 8 19:51:57 2013 From: alfio.puglisi at gmail.com (Alfio Puglisi) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 20:51:57 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Apologies was Re: (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: <1357638622.74674.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1357654599.33061.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 6:03 PM, BillK wrote: > On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 2:16 PM, The Avantguardian wrote: > > My apologies to Bill and anyone affected by this incident. It is a > curious situation. The spam emails > > occured while my computer was off ( I got a bunch of failure notices > from Yahoo's mailer daemon > > and recieved the spam to my other email accounts since I email things to > myself fairly regularly.) > > A short while ago, I ran both Malaware Bytes and Avast and neither > program found anything > > (I was looking for keyloggers or other spyware that could have > compromised my Yahoo account > > since an active local infection of my computer was hopefully ruled out > by the computer being off.) > > Both scans came back negative. I am therefore operating under the > assumption that the security > > breach was on Yahoo's end and changed my account password and retrieval > information. > > If Bill or anyone else has any further advice, I am open to suggestions. > > > > That sounds fine to me. If changing your Yahoo password stops the spam > then Yahoo was the source. > That doesn't mean that Yahoo was necessarily at fault. Your mail > password could have been guessed or obtained by some other method, > e.g. in an internet cafe or on a public wifi link. > > On the subject of webmails, gmail has a useful feature, it will warn you if it detects strange logins. One day I opened my account, only to find a warning message that in the last few days it had been accessed from Romania. I immediately changed the password, and to this date I have no idea whether the warning had a real basis or not (any cracker worthy of the name would have changed the password right away). Alfio -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Jan 8 16:50:55 2013 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 8 Jan 2013 11:50:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Apologies was Re: (no subject) In-Reply-To: <003301cdedb2$e52ff760$af8fe620$@att.net> References: <1357638622.74674.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1357654599.33061.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <003301cdedb2$e52ff760$af8fe620$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Jan 8, 2013 at 10:14 AM, spike wrote: > Idea: spam filters should have an auto-post that goes to any address one specifies as a never block. That would be the email counterpart to Facebook's friending. That being said, I sometimes get the urge to get a bullhorn and go over to Menlo Park, stand outside the headquarters and explain to the silly goofs that the term friend is a NOUN not a verb. Those annoying proles have made my job harder in teaching my own son about the nuances of language. We do not friend a friend, we befriend a friend. By flatly refusing to wade into the memetic tarpit which is Facebook and use only email, then our never-blocking an address is how we electronically befriend a friend. email is easily spoofed. Hopefully that explains the impersonation of Avantguardian rather than keyloggers and such scumware. I think it may be your son who teaches you the nuances of language. We verb nouns all the time ("friend"). We also noun verbs ("link"). Isn't language allowed/supposed to evolve? From rtomek at ceti.pl Wed Jan 9 23:34:27 2013 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 00:34:27 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] Apologies was Re: (no subject) In-Reply-To: References: <1357638622.74674.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <1357654599.33061.YahooMailNeo@web160505.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Tue, 8 Jan 2013, Alfio Puglisi wrote: [...] > idea whether the warning had a real basis or not (any cracker worthy of the > name would have changed the password right away). I don't think so. It is a game. When they change your password, you know someone hacked you and the game is almost over. 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 Thu Jan 10 14:55:50 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 06:55:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] rich blocks poor blocks Message-ID: <002701cdef42$951c6b00$bf554100$@att.net> Cool, here's a fun little toy. Someone went thru the census records and mapped the high earning places with the not. http://www.richblockspoorblocks.com/ Some of the information is outdated, or is distorted by the shape of the districts. For instance, they show the lower end of East Palo Alto is low income, but that isn't true now. Everything below the 101 freeway is high bucks. spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Jan 10 14:15:26 2013 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 06:15:26 -0800 Subject: [ExI] For your amusement Message-ID: Nature | Books and Arts Limits be damned * Cyrus C. M. Mody Nature 493, 24?25 (03 January 2013) doi:10.1038/493024a Published online 02 January 2013 Article tools * Download PDF * Citation * Reprints * Rights & permissions Cyrus Mody applauds an examination of the twentieth-century scientists who dreamed of breaking the bounds. The Visioneers: How a Group of Elite Scientists Pursued Space Colonies, Nanotechnologies, and a Limitless Future W. Patrick McCray Princeton University Press: 2012. 328 pp. ?19.95, $29.95 ISBN: 9780691139838 Buy this book: US UK Japan To the best of our knowledge, human life is constrained by natural limits: we do not live forever, we cannot transport ourselves or transmit information faster than the speed of light, and there is a finite supply of fossil fuels. Debates about such limits have shaped, and been shaped by, scientific and technological knowledge for centuries. Even faulty predictions about limits have made important contributions. Thomas Malthus' pessimism, for instance, prepared the ground for Darwin's theory of natural selection, and the overly optimistic vision of Lewis Strauss, former chairman of the US Atomic Energy Commission, of ?energy too cheap to meter? facilitated decades of nuclear-power research and development. In The Visioneers, science historian Patrick McCray of the University of California, Santa Barbara, argues that the resource-scarcity debates of the 1970s inspired a generation of visionary scientists and engineers. This influential crew had big dreams about overcoming all kinds of limits; occasionally built working models to demonstrate progress towards their dreams; and passionately assembled coalitions to make those dreams a reality. McCray focuses on Gerard K. O'Neill, the Princeton physicist and designer of space colonies, and on his prot?g?, K. Eric Drexler, the 'speculative engineer' trained at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge who helped to put nanotechnology on political agendas in the early 1990s. Along the way, McCray introduces a large and colourful cast of others who, over four decades, promoted technological progress as the way to overcome every limit. O'Neill's ideas reached a mass audience in part through the L5 Society founded in 1975 by Keith and Carolyn Henson. These livestock farmers and Tolkien enthusiasts from Arizona later drifted into advocacy for the Strategic Defense Initiative and cryonic life extension, a proposed technology by which all or part of a human body would be frozen at death in the hope that it could be re-animated later. Drexler also imagined that cryonic immortality could be facilitated by programmable 'molecular assemblers' ? nanometre-scale robots, or nanobots ? repairing the tissues of corpses frozen at death. Pillars of the California counterculture ? such as the psychologist and LSD advocate Timothy Leary, and Stewart Brand, founder of the Whole Earth Catalog ? also took up the visions of O'Neill and Drexler, working them into manifestos on transhumanism and the 'electronic frontier'. Brand served on the board of the Foresight Institute, set up in 1986 by Drexler, and made Drexler's molecular assemblers a centrepiece of the future scenarios that his Global Business Network sold to enthralled chief executives. McCray documents how cryonics and radical life extension, space colonies, molecular nanotechnology and exotic sources of energy (such as solar-power satellites and zero-point energy) were widely popularized, alongside unsceptical articles about paranormal phenomena, by the pornographers Bob Guccione and Kathryn Keeton in their glossy monthly magazine Omni. Indeed, McCray argues that the audience that Omni catered to ? young and male, with a taste for luxury goods, high-tech gadgets, libertarian politics and libertine excesses ? strongly resembled the visioneers and many of their followers. One thread ran through all of this: the 1972 blockbuster The Limits to Growth (Universe), by global think-tank the Club of Rome. This book goaded O'Neill and Drexler, says McCray, into sketching their plans for a limitless future. The Limits to Growth ? along with public intellectuals such as the biologist Paul Ehrlich and the ecologist Garrett Hardin, plus fictional films such as Soylent Green, Logan's Run and Silent Running ? popularized the idea that resource scarcity and a growing population would combine to create shortages of economically crucial materials. That message took root around the world in the 1970s, particularly (if temporarily) in a United States beset by 'stagflation', oil shortages and environmental crises such as the Santa Barbara oil spill of 1969. However, the original computer models on which The Limits to Growth was based, developed by veterans of Jay Forrester's systems-dynamics group at MIT, failed to account adequately for the role of technological innovation in ameliorating resource scarcity, at least over the near term. Although the models were later refined, the 1972 version provoked a storm of criticism, much of it justified. Many lay people, particularly those of the generation whose childhoods were infused with the optimism of the US space programme, responded to talk of scarcity with a visceral aversion. These teens and twenty-somethings latched on to O'Neill's visions of suburbs in space piping abundant solar power and lunar regolith back to Earth. O'Neill himself was ambivalent about their support, and when his star faded they moved on to form or follow other high-tech enthusiast movements, each of which took The Limits to Growth as its foil. McCray's book is especially convincing in following the various movements that arose in reaction to the Club of Rome's 1972 book. At present, we face genuinely alarming limits to growth. Our ability to comprehend and act on such constraints ? particularly with respect to climate change and alternative energy ? is still distorted by the infelicities in the first edition of The Limits to Growth and the ferocious reaction to its conclusions. Some visioneering ideas for overcoming limits to economic growth have contributed to inaction on climate change by promising an appealing but impossibly easy, sacrifice-free, small-government path to a limitless future. These have distracted attention from politically difficult, less technology-intensive solutions. McCray's argument that visioneers play an important part in the ?technological ecosystem? is also compelling, but asymmetrically deployed. For one thing, as the book's subtitle implies, only those who propose a limitless future get to be visioneers; technical experts who popularize visions of a future that is constrained by scarcity (Forrester or the biologist Barry Commoner, for example) apparently do not count. McCray also sometimes treats his visioneers less critically than their foils. He describes The Limits to Growth as ?refuted? by experts, but treats equally damning arguments against the visions of O'Neill and Drexler in a 'he-said?she-said' fashion. For instance, Nobel Laureate Richard Smalley's contention that Drexler's molecular gears and conveyor belts obey an impossible chemistry is dismissed as ?Drexler and Smalley largely talk[ing] past one another?. Yet McCray is correct that visioneers influence, and are influenced by, an ecosystem of philanthropists, politicians, funding agencies, entrepreneurs, undergraduates, scientists and others. That group spurs technological innovation, crafts science policy, and shapes and shares widely held visions of the future. From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jan 10 23:40:18 2013 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 10 Jan 2013 23:40:18 +0000 Subject: [ExI] U.S. spy agency predicts a very transhuman future by 2030 Message-ID: The National Intelligence Council has just released its much anticipated forecasting report, a 140-page document that outlines major trends and technological developments we should expect in the next 20 years. Among their many predictions, the NIC foresees the end of U.S. global dominance, the rising power of individuals against states, a growing middle class that will increasingly challenge governments, and ongoing shortages in water, food and energy. But they also envision a future in which humans have been significantly modified by their technologies ? what will herald the dawn of the transhuman era. Looks like transhumanism is becoming very mainstream these days. BillK From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Jan 11 15:07:31 2013 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 16:07:31 +0100 Subject: [ExI] U.S. spy agency predicts a very transhuman future by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11 January 2013 00:40, BillK wrote: > The National Intelligence Council has just released its much > anticipated forecasting report, a 140-page document that outlines > major trends and technological developments we should expect in the > next 20 years. Among their many predictions, the NIC foresees the end > of U.S. global dominance, the rising power of individuals against > states, a growing middle class that will increasingly challenge > governments, and ongoing shortages in water, food and energy. But they > also envision a future in which humans have been significantly > modified by their technologies ? what will herald the dawn of the > transhuman era. > Hey, I like my glass of fresh water like the next guy, but all that sounds for the rest overly optimistic... :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From painlord2k at libero.it Fri Jan 11 16:14:58 2013 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 17:14:58 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50F03A82.4020802@libero.it> Il 15/12/2012 10:56, BillK ha scritto: > Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 > Even better: It could do so at the same cost as fossil fuels It is always interesting they say always "could" and never "can". http://www.thegwpf.org/poland-czech-republic-ban-germanys-green-energy/ Poland and other disagree to foot the bill for Germany Wind and Solar madness. Mirco From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Jan 11 19:05:50 2013 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:05:50 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Humanity Plus election Message-ID: I believe to be still a card-carrying member thereof, but I heard really little about the subject. Any views some of us might care to share? And, btw, there used to exist a list called wta-talk. Does Humanity Plus have any list or forum nowadays? -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rtomek at ceti.pl Fri Jan 11 19:28:01 2013 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:28:01 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] US to become 'net energy exporter' (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 19:12:04 +0100 (CET) From: Tomasz Rola To: Transhuman Tech Cc: Tomasz Rola Subject: US to become 'net energy exporter' (fwd) (Curiouser and curiouser! Alice said... - TR) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:08:31 +0100 From: Felix Stalder To: Subject: US to become 'net energy exporter' Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 09:09:52 +0100 Resent-From: nettime at kein.org Resent-To: Nettime It's hard to wrap one's head around the number of possible implications this shift in energy extraction has. One thing seems clear, oil/gas production will not peak any time soon. So neither the breakdown of fossil fuel civilization is taking place, or will increased oil/gas prices drive the shift towards renewable energy sources. So, things are likely to continue the way they are. Not really a sustainable path, isn't it. Felix US to become 'net energy exporter' Last updated: 7 January 2013 http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/01/20131514160576297.html Shale gas boom rewrites geopolitical rules, as US is set to produce more petroleum than Saudi Arabia within a decade. Some industry veterans believe it's the biggest development in the energy game since 1859, when the first US oil well gushed from beneath the earth in Titusville, Pennsylvania. In changes that would have been unthinkable just five years ago, the US is set to become a net energy exporter in the next few years, thanks to the controversial process of fracking that is re-wiring geopolitics and the world of energy. The practice of shooting steam and chemicals into shale rock formations to unlock energy sources previously considered marginal has "changed the world", according to one lawyer with more than 40 years of experience negotiating natural gas contracts. "We are talking about increases [in natural gas production] of 15 to 20 percent per year," George Washington University law professor Richard Pierce told Al Jazeera. "The US is now 100 percent independent in natural gas and within the next half a dozen years [North America] will be independent in oil. It will become a global supplier, rather than a demander, in a hurry." 'Once-in-a-lifetime experience' New technologies to access hard-to-reach fuels mean that, in 2012, the United States experienced its largest rise in annual oil output since the middle of the 19th century, according to data from the US Energy Information Administration (EIA) released in December. Shale gas is a fossil fuel trapped inside formations of shale rock. Some of these formations also contain oil. The expected 760,000 barrel-per-day increase in US crude oil production in 2012 is the largest rise in annual output since the beginning of US commercial oil extraction in 1859, an EIA official said in a statement. Fracking controversy "This is a once in a lifetime thing we are experiencing now," Paul Faeth, a senior fellow with the CNA research organisation, told Al Jazeera. "The chemical industry is moving back to the US [because of cheap gas] and demand will increase because of low prices." The gas boom has led to about $90bn in new investments in related US industries over the past two years, including steel manufacturing, petrochemicals production and fertiliser fabrication, according to Dow Chemical's calculations. Since 2005, more than $125bn has been spent on shale extraction, including drilling and purchasing land, by the 50 largest US oil and gas companies, according to a study by Ernst and Young. High prices over the past decade, the flow of petroleum from east to west, and the gush of money the other way has allowed Russia to re-assert its international clout and Gulf states to build up massive sovereign wealth funds. The shale boom has the potential to derail those trends. In 2011, members of the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting countries (OPEC) earned $1,026bn in net oil export revenue, a 33 percent increase over 2010, the US Energy Information Adminisiration reported in May. If the price of oil drops because of new supplies, or if natural gas starts to eat into demand for traditional crude, oil-rich nations could potentially find themselves significantly less well-off. "There will be significant impacts for security and global politics," Faeth said of the shale boom. Blue-eyed 'sheikhs' Thanks largely to fracking, the US is set to overtake Saudi Arabia and Russia to become the world's biggest oil producer by 2017, according to a November report from the International Energy Agency (IEA). Should gas-dependent leaders, including Russia's Vladimir Putin or the Emir of Qatar, be worried? Will the wealth and power of steely-eyed ex-KGB agents or white-robed sheikhs be overshadowed by a rebirth of the American oil man - a new breed of Beverly Hillbilly? "In the medium term, I think Qatar and Russia are okay," Frank Asche, professor of risk management at the University of Stavanger in Norway, told Al Jazeera. "Not [just] because they sell to customers on long-term contracts, but because the infrastructure is there." Transporting natural gas around the world is more difficult than moving oil. Russia has pipelines running to Western Europe, while Qatar - the world's largest natural gas exporter - has shipping terminals in key Asian markets. Oil has a single, global price. But because of transportation challenges, the cost of natural gas varies widely between markets: Japan pays more than five times as much for natural gas compared with the US, according to some estimates. But that could change as new reserves are found and technologies advance. "I think we are moving closer to a global natural gas market," Asche said. "It's only a matter of time, I think, until you see something like a big super-tanker that can carry LNG (liquefied natural gas) around the world." Fault Lines: Fracking in America In the short-term, when prices are dependent on geography, the US is hardly alone in tapping into shale formations for domestic consumption. Other states that traditionally imported much of their gas, including Australia, Argentina, South Africa, Poland and China are also looking to cash in on the shale boom. But for now, the US is benefiting the most from the recent gas gush. Water 'crisis' Environmentalists and some analysts, however, caution that jubilant predictions from a country that consumes some 25 percent of the world's oil will run into environmental constraints including global warming and a lack of fresh water. "There is no question that fresh water is going to be a serious concern... the water crisis will be the next big crisis people will have to confront everywhere in the world in the next few decades," Pierce, the energy lawyer and professor, said. "Limits on fresh water, to a certain extent, will be the determining limit on fracking capability... how serious a limit is hard to say." Extracting gas from one well through fracking takes about five million gallons of water, the equivalent of between 800 and 1,300 truckloads, said energy consultant Faeth. Over its lifespan, an average well produces more than 4 billion cubic feet of gas equivilent - enough energy to power about 16,000,000 homes for one day. Mixed with chemicals, much of the water ends up contaminated after being used in the fracking process. One well will often need to be fracked up to 18 times, drastically increasing water contamination. "The industry is not that transparent; we don't know exactly how much water is being used in different places," Lorne Stockman, research director of advocacy group Oil Change International, told Al Jazeera. "Public discomfort with the fracking boom is growing, especially in states like Ohio... I can't say if it will come to a head." Despite concerns about water quality, energy companies and supporters of unconventional gas extraction say the process is good for the environment, as it means "dirty" coal could be replaced by gas in power plants and other facilities. The jury is still out on whether that's correct. A study released in the journal Nature earlier this month found that fracking operations in Utah and Colorado leak about nine percent of the total methane contained in the wells. Methane, the chief component of natural gas, is a far worse contributor to global warming compared with carbon dioxide, and the figure of nine percent claimed by the study is higher than previously thought. "The methane emissions matter a lot in the broader scheme of things," Faeth said. "If the study is right, the impacts of unconventional gas [on the climate] would not be positive compared to coal... [For environmental problems] gas will not be the long-term solution." The fracking process, which forces steam and chemcials into rock formations, has also been known to cause earthquakes in Ohio, the UK and other regions. Pressure on renewables The gas boom could actually hurt sustainability in the long-term, as investment capital needed to finance research into solar, geothermal and wind energy is diverted to drill for gas in middle America. "You can't separate climate change from discussions about global security. We have far more oil, gas and coal than we can afford to burn if we are going to avoid catastrophic climate change." - Lorne Stockman, Oil Change International If natural gas prices remain reasonably stable, banks can get a guaranteed return on capital invested in extraction, making the shale game a reasonably safe bet that is popular with Wall Street. New, renewable technologies, on the other hand, often take years of research before they come to market and a return on investment is not guaranteed. Often pioneered by small start-ups, the next energy game-changer could miss out on funding opporunities, as the big players are busy tapping shale deposits. In some respects, the industry has been a victim of its own success in the short-term; natural gas prices in some areas are down more than 50 percent since the middle of 2008, due to new supplies coming into the market. "In the power sector, cheap gas has hurt renewables to some degree," Faeth said. Through 2013, analysts do not expect a lot of wells to be drilled in new fields, as producers focus on oil development and exploiting existing wells. This slight downturn, however, is unlikely to last for too long. If prices stay low, power plants and petrochemical facilities are likely to buy more gas to fuel their industries, thus leading to more demand and higher prices. The key element over the long-term is that major reserves have been unlocked in an area previously thought to have hit its "peak" production, analysts said. 'Leave it in the ground' Traders in New York and wildcat drillers in Pennsylvania might be celebrating the newly minted resources, as are security hawks who relish the idea of reducing US energy dependency on the Middle East. But there is near-universal consensus among scientists and policymakers that these new resources should be left in the ground. "No more than one-third of proven fossil fuels can be consumed prior to 2050 if the world is to achieve the two degrees Celsius goal" - the limit for averting catastrophic climate change - according to International Energy Agency data released in November. The IEA is hardly Greenpeace, and predictions from the IEA, an industry-backed body, should be taken seriously, environmentalist campaigners said. Leaving massive amounts of cheap natural gas untouched, however, will be nearly impossible for politicians in the US and beyond who are keen to jumpstart recession-battered economies and end dependence on foreign energy sources. "The advantages gained geopolitically [for the US] by these new sources are small compared to the disadvantages of remaining dependent on oil as a source of energy given the threat of climate change," Stockman said. "You can't separate climate change from discussions about global security. We have far more oil, gas and coal than we can afford to burn if we are going to avoid catastrophic climate change." -- -|- http://felix.openflows.com ------------------------ books out now: | *|Cultures & Ethics of Sharing/Kulturen & Ethiken des Teilens UIP 2012 *|Vergessene Zukunft. Radikale Netzkulturen in Europa. transcript 2012 *|Deep Search. The Politics of Searching Beyond Google. Studienv. 2009 *|Mediale Kunst/Media Arts Zurich.13 Positions. Scheidegger&Spiess2008 *|Manuel Castells and the Theory of the Network Society.Polity P. 2006 *|Open Cultures and the Nature of Networks. Ed Futura / Revolver, 2005 | # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at kein.org From natasha at natasha.cc Fri Jan 11 19:28:15 2013 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 12:28:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Humanity Plus election In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005601cdf031$cd717140$685453c0$@natasha.cc> Hi Stefano, What not run for the Board? There are two seats open! I will ivoice my personal views as a member, but not as an officer of Humanity+. Anything you'd like to ask? J There is no wta-talk email list. There is a new list called hplus-talk. You can join it from the website. Here is a link directly to the sign-up page: http://lists.list.humanityplus.org/mailman/listinfo/hplus-talk Best, Natasha From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 12:06 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] Humanity Plus election I believe to be still a card-carrying member thereof, but I heard really little about the subject. Any views some of us might care to share? And, btw, there used to exist a list called wta-talk. Does Humanity Plus have any list or forum nowadays? -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jan 11 19:31:44 2013 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:31:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Humanity Plus election In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130111193144.GP30918@leitl.org> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 08:05:50PM +0100, Stefano Vaj wrote: > I believe to be still a card-carrying member thereof, but I heard really > little about the subject. > > Any views some of us might care to share? > > And, btw, there used to exist a list called wta-talk. Does Humanity Plus > have any list or forum nowadays? http://lists.list.humanityplus.org/mailman/listinfo/hplus-talk From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jan 11 19:36:06 2013 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:36:06 +0100 Subject: [ExI] US to become 'net energy exporter' (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130111193606.GQ30918@leitl.org> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 08:28:01PM +0100, Tomasz Rola wrote: > (Curiouser and curiouser! Alice said... - TR) To jive with Charles Lutwidge: http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9748 Cheap, abundant fossil is gone for good. Better accept that idea, and even better: start doing something about that, best yestercentury. Die-off is supposed to start by 2030, that's not so many years off. From ilia.stambler at gmail.com Fri Jan 11 20:06:03 2013 From: ilia.stambler at gmail.com (Ilia Stambler) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 22:06:03 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Humanity Plus election In-Reply-To: <005601cdf031$cd717140$685453c0$@natasha.cc> References: <005601cdf031$cd717140$685453c0$@natasha.cc> Message-ID: when was the announcement about the election on hplus-talk at list.humanityplus.org? or humanityplus-members at googlegroups.com? On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 9:28 PM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Hi Stefano,**** > > ** ** > > What not run for the Board? There are two seats open!**** > > ** ** > > I will ivoice my personal views as a member, but not as an officer of > Humanity+. Anything you?d like to ask? J**** > > ** ** > > There is no wta-talk email list. There is a new list called hplus-talk. > You can join it from the website. Here is a link directly to the sign-up > page: http://lists.list.humanityplus.org/mailman/listinfo/hplus-talk**** > > ** ** > > Best,**** > > Natasha**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto: > extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On Behalf Of *Stefano Vaj > *Sent:* Friday, January 11, 2013 12:06 PM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* [ExI] Humanity Plus election**** > > ** ** > > I believe to be still a card-carrying member thereof, but I heard really > little about the subject. > > Any views some of us might care to share? > > And, btw, there used to exist a list called wta-talk. Does Humanity Plus > have any list or forum nowadays? > > -- > Stefano Vaj **** > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Fri Jan 11 23:00:06 2013 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 00:00:06 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] US to become 'net energy exporter' (fwd) In-Reply-To: <20130111193606.GQ30918@leitl.org> References: <20130111193606.GQ30918@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 08:28:01PM +0100, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > (Curiouser and curiouser! Alice said... - TR) > > To jive with Charles Lutwidge: > > http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9748 > > Cheap, abundant fossil is gone for good. Better accept that idea, and > even better: start doing something about that, best yestercentury. > Die-off is supposed to start by 2030, that's not so many years off. Ah, here you are, Eugen ;-). Yes, interesting article, at least this one has some pictures. If/when we start going throu the glass, I assume it will not be anywhere near pleasant experience. 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 kellycoinguy at gmail.com Fri Jan 11 22:39:29 2013 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 15:39:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] US to become 'net energy exporter' (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: First, being Al Jazeera, your mileage may vary... Of course, they SHOULD be the best place to get news about oil... A study released in the journal Nature earlier this month found that > fracking operations in Utah and Colorado leak about nine percent of > the total methane contained in the wells. Methane, the chief component > of natural gas, is a far worse contributor to global warming compared > with carbon dioxide, and the figure of nine percent claimed by the > study is higher than previously thought. > Someone tell me if this is correct, but I heard that while methane is a more vigorous contributor to global warming (10x to 20x), it also breaks down in the atmosphere over time, while CO2 does not. So it is a shorter term issue than CO2, and the overall contribution is less impactful. There is no way to stop fracking politically. This is going to save the Obama administration from their own bumbling in a similar way to how the Internet bubble and cell phones saved Bill Clinton, IMNSHO. -Kelly -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rtomek at ceti.pl Fri Jan 11 23:13:48 2013 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 00:13:48 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] US to become 'net energy exporter' (fwd) Message-ID: (The following info is probably known already by people reading, but here goes - TR) ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 14:05:00 +0100 From: Eugen Leitl To: Subject: Re: US to become 'net energy exporter' Resent-Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 23:47:28 +0100 Resent-From: nettime at kein.org Resent-To: Nettime On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:08:31AM +0100, Felix Stalder wrote: > It's hard to wrap one's head around the number of possible > implications this shift in energy extraction has. One thing seems Or maybe not http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9751 http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9748 http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9744 > clear, oil/gas production will not peak any time soon. So neither Au contraire, the peak was 2006. The curve has been flat since. > the breakdown of fossil fuel civilization is taking place, or will > increased oil/gas prices drive the shift towards renewable energy > sources. Globally, renewable energy sources have a negligible substition rate. Humanity currently runs on 16 TW, and is projected to require ~30 TW by 2050 (assuming it doesn't contract or collapse before). Assuming linear growth you need an annual substitution rate of 1 TW/year, which translates to about 3 TWp for solar photovoltaics, the only technology capable of scaling. Total annual deployment rate is currently ~30 GW, so we're two orders of magnitude too low. > So, things are likely to continue the way they are. Not really a > sustainable path, isn't it. We're still on track for the World3 limits to growth scenario, which predicts peak population by around 2030. So it goes. # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at kein.org From rtomek at ceti.pl Fri Jan 11 23:55:32 2013 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 00:55:32 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] US to become 'net energy exporter' (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Kelly Anderson wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > First, being Al Jazeera, your mileage may vary... Of course, they SHOULD > be the best place to get news about oil... Actually, from what I have understood, AJ until 2011 have been owned by monarch of Qatar, a quite close US ally. So indeed, mileage etc. Myself, I am not shy to learn other people's views. Otherwise, how am I supposed to understand this mad world? In this case, however, I'd say they are kind of Arabian CNN. Or maybe Fox. Not decided yet. Maybe it's all the same. > more vigorous contributor to global warming (10x to 20x), it also breaks > down in the atmosphere over time, while CO2 does not. So it is a shorter > term issue than CO2, and the overall contribution is less impactful. But, whatever breaks does not disappear. In case of methane, from what I have read, either it breaks into CO2 and H2O (a steam is said to be even more potent g-gas, but at the same time I somehow cannot find too much about it, for whatever reason) - or it reacts with some other compounds, producing things like chloroform, carbon tetrachloride and few others (most or maybe all of them, AFAIK, not neutral to health). So one way or another, it is not very cool to emit this. But chemistry is very far from my home base so I may be wrong. Or idiot. 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 hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Jan 12 04:33:42 2013 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:33:42 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Peevish legacy of dour Puritanism Message-ID: I responded to http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/01/09/a_new_US_grand_strategy?page=0,7&wp_login_redirect=0 I have read perhaps a couple of hundred articles of this kind in the last few years. There is an unspoken underlying assumption based on the peevish legacy of dour Puritanism. The future will be tightly resource limited and we will have to be virtuous, getting by on much less, moving to tightly packed housing, walking or riding bicycles, flying seldom if at all and not wasting anything. (Different rules for the rich of course. But speaking of waste, have you ever considered how much of the Sun's energy is wasted? Virtually all of it sails by the planets becoming uselessly dilute. Why not tap that and quit using fossil carbon? This question recasts the discussion from "religious like" to engineering and economics; how do we do it and how do we pay for it? I am an engineer, so the second part is beyond my remit, but the first seems to have at least one answer. Going into space with the technology used to date is like borrowing money at ruinous interest rates. It's why the Saturn rockets started out the size of skyscrapers and came back the size of a mini van. The "interest rate" depends on the ratio of the rocket exhaust velocity to the mission velocity. We can't do anything about the energy in chemical rocket fuel, but we can sidestep the problem by using external heat from a laser. The result of a long and tedious analysis is that laser propulsion can get the cost of lifting solar power plants into space down far enough that energy from space could uncut even coal by a factor of two, and grow fast enough to end the use of fossil fuels in two decades from the decision to do it. Sustainable? Not really, the Sun will go out in a few billion years. But it seems like an OK interim solution. Keith From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Sat Jan 12 03:45:41 2013 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Fri, 11 Jan 2013 20:45:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] US to become 'net energy exporter' (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 4:55 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Kelly Anderson wrote: > > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 12:28 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > > > First, being Al Jazeera, your mileage may vary... Of course, they SHOULD > > be the best place to get news about oil... > > Actually, from what I have understood, AJ until 2011 have been owned by > monarch of Qatar, a quite close US ally. So indeed, mileage etc. Myself, I > am not shy to learn other people's views. Otherwise, how am I supposed to > understand this mad world? In this case, however, I'd say they are kind of > Arabian CNN. Or maybe Fox. Not decided yet. Maybe it's all the same. > I'm not shy either, but they have given air time to terrorists... not my favorite people, damn Amish anyway. > > more vigorous contributor to global warming (10x to 20x), it also breaks > > down in the atmosphere over time, while CO2 does not. So it is a shorter > > term issue than CO2, and the overall contribution is less impactful. > > But, whatever breaks does not disappear. In case of methane, from what I > have read, either it breaks into CO2 and H2O (a steam is said to be even > more potent g-gas, but at the same time I somehow cannot find too much > about it, for whatever reason) - or it reacts with some other compounds, > producing things like chloroform, carbon tetrachloride and few others > (most or maybe all of them, AFAIK, not neutral to health). So one way or > another, it is not very cool to emit this. > Again, H20 falls out of the atmosphere, I believe it's called precipitation... To me a key reason that CO2 gets all the bad press is because it is directly tied to our use of fossil fuels, and that is closely correlated to capitalism, and as all environmentalists know, capitalism is bad. Of course, in countries that become rich, they tend to pollute less, but let's not confuse the issue with facts. > But chemistry is very far from my home base so I may be wrong. Or idiot. > > It is hard to say anything in this area and not be attacked by someone. -Kelly > Regards, > Tomasz Rola > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rtomek at ceti.pl Sat Jan 12 17:39:21 2013 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 18:39:21 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] US to become 'net energy exporter' (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Kelly Anderson wrote: [...] > I'm not shy either, but they have given air time to terrorists... not my > favorite people, damn Amish anyway. I see. In my own machiavellian way, I will guess that majority of TV stations gave therrorisths air time, back when they were hip and alive. Myself, I enjoyed those moments when Osama took his kalashnikov and fired it against enemies. Only there was no fire coming out of barrel, and his arms remained steady, like no recoil at all. Truly, Osama was a man made of stone (longterm, however, every stone breaks, being elastic is so much wiser). Either this, or a gun was plastic toy, producing only sounds. One way or another, interesting to watch. Or do you mean they were actually supporting the rroristhic case? This too would be interesting to know. [...] > Again, H20 falls out of the atmosphere, I believe it's called > precipitation... >From what I have read, how much steam stays in the air depends on temperature. The hotter the air, the wetter. So there is possibility of runaway positive feedback. As of CO2, I don't consider it very big issue (but it is an issue, just very overhyped, at least from my POV). I have already given some thoughts on this few days ago. > > But chemistry is very far from my home base so I may be wrong. Or idiot. > > > > > It is hard to say anything in this area and not be attacked by someone. Yes, this is why I encourage everybody by going my half of the way and suggesting that I am actually an idiot. My half is easier, I admit - it doesn't require any proof. 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 Sat Jan 12 17:53:29 2013 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 18:53:29 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] US to become 'net energy exporter' (fwd) Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 00:23:00 -0700 From: John Hopkins To: Subject: Re: US to become 'net energy exporter' Resent-Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 09:39:23 +0100 Resent-From: nettime at kein.org Resent-To: Nettime Hi Felix! > It's hard to wrap one's head around the number of possible > implications this shift in energy extraction has. One thing seems > clear, oil/gas production will not peak any time soon. So neither > the breakdown of fossil fuel civilization is taking place, or will > increased oil/gas prices drive the shift towards renewable energy > sources. A somewhat simplified picture: One thing the article did not mention is that well life-times in these tight gas/oil shale reservoirs is very short. 'Traditional' oil production depends on rock reservoirs that are quite (naturally) permeable and that allow a stratigraphic flow through contiguous interstices to a well-bore without much help (or even none at all when under 'natural' pressure). In a fracked shale situation, the rock is extremely tight (shale having much smaller 'grains' and very low permeability) -- the fracking is the only source of flow pathways to the bore, and consequently wells peak quickly with the oil/gas that happens to be proximal to the fracked section streaming out but otherwise the rock is still tight, so that once that initial flow happens, the flow rate tails off very quickly. This is quite different than 'traditional' easy reservoirs, some which will produce for tens of years, albeit at a slowly declining rate. Another words, the following: > US to become 'net energy exporter' doesn't really mean that much in the big picture in terms of depletion, unsustainability, and such. And to echo another posting, there is a consequent increase in methane and other heavy greenhouse gasses in the process all of which are way worse that Co2... > > http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2013/01/20131514160576297.html > > Shale gas boom rewrites geopolitical rules, as US is set to produce > more petroleum than Saudi Arabia within a decade. [I find it strange that there were so many typos in an Al Jazeera article, too -- their editors are getting REALLY sloppy!!! Wonder what that's about!?] jh -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Dr. John Hopkins, BSc, MFA, PhD Watching the Tao rather than watching the Dow! http://neoscenes.net/ http://tech-no-mad.net/blog/ ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ # distributed via : no commercial use without permission # is a moderated mailing list for net criticism, # collaborative text filtering and cultural politics of the nets # more info: http://mx.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/nettime-l # archive: http://www.nettime.org contact: nettime at kein.org From atymes at gmail.com Sat Jan 12 18:52:02 2013 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 10:52:02 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Peevish legacy of dour Puritanism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > But speaking of waste, have you ever considered how much of the Sun's > energy is wasted? Virtually all of it sails by the planets becoming > uselessly dilute. The Sun "... blasts unimaginable quantities of energy into space each instant, and virtually every joule of it is wasted entirely. Incomprehensible riches can be ours if we can but stretch our arms wide enough to dip from this eternal river of wealth." > This question recasts the discussion from "religious like" to > engineering and economics; how do we do it and how do we pay for it? I am thinking, more and more these days, that the only feasible way to get something like this involves not paying for it - at least, not directly paying for the vast majority of it. E.g., get an automated solar factory on the Moon. It need not be all that efficient, but it does need to be able to expand itself in reasonable time until it can churn out solar panels at a reasonable rate. One may pay for the seed factory, for ground crew time "operating" the factory (which may be just monitoring, but having a human involved to satisfy outside parties who care more about the politics than the details), and a few other things - but this is a far cry from buying each and every solar panel. From eugen at leitl.org Sat Jan 12 20:09:09 2013 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 21:09:09 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Peevish legacy of dour Puritanism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130112200909.GL30918@leitl.org> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 10:52:02AM -0800, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 8:33 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > > But speaking of waste, have you ever considered how much of the Sun's > > energy is wasted? Virtually all of it sails by the planets becoming > > uselessly dilute. > > The Sun "... blasts unimaginable quantities of energy into space each Total solar output: 4 MT/s (that is megatons/second, in the E=mc^2 sense, not the TNT equivalent sense). Earth intercepts 2 kg/s, or 2 Hz of Tsar bombas (about 100 MT/s, in terms of TNT equivalent). > instant, and virtually every joule of it is wasted entirely. Incomprehensible > riches can be ours if we can but stretch our arms wide enough to dip from > this eternal river of wealth." Much more prosaically, failure to do so will result in hunter-gatherer level of technology and population density, on the long run. It's not as if we've got a choice. > > This question recasts the discussion from "religious like" to > > engineering and economics; how do we do it and how do we pay for it? > > I am thinking, more and more these days, that the only feasible way to > get something like this involves not paying for it - at least, not directly > paying for the vast majority of it. > > E.g., get an automated solar factory on the Moon. It need not be all that Yes indeed. An idea more than 30 years old http://www.molecularassembler.com/KSRM.htm > efficient, but it does need to be able to expand itself in reasonable time > until it can churn out solar panels at a reasonable rate. One may pay The first step is extending the Internet to include the entire Moon, with at least 1 GBit/s throughput. > for the seed factory, for ground crew time "operating" the factory (which Teleoperation is cheap enough, and by rotating the crew across the time zones you'll get 24/7/365 operation. Initially this will be limited to "peak of eternal sunlight" zones, but by adding PV/HVDC infrastructure annulus by annulus you'll creep steadily equatorwards, without having to cater to lunar day/night. > may be just monitoring, but having a human involved to satisfy outside > parties who care more about the politics than the details), and a few > other things - but this is a far cry from buying each and every solar > panel. The ecosystem operates itself, with us profiting from it. Postbiology will be the same. From rtomek at ceti.pl Sat Jan 12 20:38:07 2013 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 21:38:07 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <50F03A82.4020802@libero.it> References: <50F03A82.4020802@libero.it> Message-ID: On Fri, 11 Jan 2013, Mirco Romanato wrote: > Il 15/12/2012 10:56, BillK ha scritto: > > Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 > > Even better: It could do so at the same cost as fossil fuels > > It is always interesting they say always "could" and never "can". > > http://www.thegwpf.org/poland-czech-republic-ban-germanys-green-energy/ > > Poland and other disagree to foot the bill for Germany Wind and Solar > madness. > > Mirco The story, after some additional poking, seems far from complete - in its current form, at least. It may hint that Germany had hit some kind of technological roadblock, which may have something to do with storing excess energy from green in power grid (which in this use is supposed to act as huge capacitor). There is also the related political problem - like a possible German dependency on Russian energy and raw materials exports. This includes not only oil/gas but maybe a coal, too. And this maybe links to the fact that from what I have heard once, Soviets liked to finance green parties. They really liked this (but I guess if Soviets had ever won, greens would have been among the first to work in Siberia, this is how stuff works). And perhaps it also boils down to the fact that in mind of typical Westerner, there is no idea of Russians cutting the supply off and thus forcing any kind of subservience. Like they currently try (with some success, perhaps) on their former subjects, Ukraine and Belarus. From what I heard, a typical Westerner thinks more like "I have the money, I want to pay, so I will buy whatever I need". But when someone controls all the shops in the town, he also controls the town, whether he says so loudly or not. And if he prefers to not sell to you, then your money have no value at all. In such case, what else besides money can you offer? Assume for a while that you cannot leave the town and police as well as magistrate are owned too. Anyway. Politics is a swamp. And getting real news is hard. So the above is just a memory dump, not opinion. 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 Jan 12 20:58:21 2013 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 20:58:21 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: <50F03A82.4020802@libero.it> Message-ID: <50F1CE6D.1010009@aleph.se> On 12/01/2013 20:38, Tomasz Rola wrote: > The story, after some additional poking, seems far from complete - in > its current form, at least. It may hint that Germany had hit some kind > of technological roadblock, which may have something to do with > storing excess energy from green in power grid (which in this use is > supposed to act as huge capacitor). I mentioned this in a post on the list a while ago (search for my posts on superconductor storage limits): the Czech had real problems with the German electricity market fluctuating wildly with the weather. Negative electricity prices are apparently hard to handle, especially if some power companies want to suck up super-cheap energy for storage in Czech water magazines for later resale. The east European power grids (and probably not the western ones either) were not built for this kind of rapid trading. You don't need to add politics to the mix, but it certainly can make it even more volatile. Generally, energy markets seem to be a fine thing, except that demand and supply fluctuate separately, and there are hard limits on transfer ability and how quickly production can be stepped up or down. That makes the efficiency a bit iffy: the price feedback mechanism is too weak. Planned energy markets instead run headlong into the information problem. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University From eugen at leitl.org Sat Jan 12 21:31:41 2013 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 22:31:41 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: <50F03A82.4020802@libero.it> Message-ID: <20130112213141.GD6172@leitl.org> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 09:38:07PM +0100, Tomasz Rola wrote: > The story, after some additional poking, seems far from complete - in its > current form, at least. It may hint that Germany had hit some kind of > technological roadblock, which may have something to do with storing The roadblock is mostly political. It doesn't matter, as the prices are speaking quite loudly, and people are quite fed up with the situation. Expect more guerilla style photovoltaics, and advent of micro- and nanogrids. > excess energy from green in power grid (which in this use is supposed to > act as huge capacitor). You don't need storage until some quite ridiculous fraction of total contribution (Germany had 21.9% renewable of total electricity in 2012, after 20.3% in 2011 and 16.4% in 2010). Ordinarily, 25% would have been expected, but wind was anomalously low in December. Total demand declined 1.4%, and net export was highest ever with 23 TWh. > There is also the related political problem - like a possible German > dependency on Russian energy and raw materials exports. This includes not Monseigneur Sabatier would like to have a word with ???????? ?????. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction Energy independency is quite feasible for high-density industrial nations. The math does check out. > only oil/gas but maybe a coal, too. And this maybe links to the fact that Very little was due to increase in coal. It seems that natural gas turbine plants will be subsidized in future, as peak plants are not cost effective if they only have to run a couple weeks/year. > from what I have heard once, Soviets liked to finance green parties. They Pics, or it didn't happen. > really liked this (but I guess if Soviets had ever won, greens would have One evil empire down, one's still to go. And just what are we gonna do after? Pax americana is drawing to an end. Things do look murky and (a)murrkier. > been among the first to work in Siberia, this is how stuff works). And Siberia is busily eating itself. Russian Far East is pretty much now Chinese, anyway. > perhaps it also boils down to the fact that in mind of typical Westerner, > there is no idea of Russians cutting the supply off and thus forcing any > kind of subservience. Like they currently try (with some success, perhaps) > on their former subjects, Ukraine and Belarus. From what I heard, a What do you do with a maliciously unreliable supplier? Why, you bypass him. > typical Westerner thinks more like "I have the money, I want to pay, so I Somebody fetch me a typical Westerner. > will buy whatever I need". But when someone controls all the shops in the > town, he also controls the town, whether he says so loudly or not. And if > he prefers to not sell to you, then your money have no value at all. In > such case, what else besides money can you offer? Assume for a while that > you cannot leave the town and police as well as magistrate are owned too. It seems that the tables are quite inverted, here. > Anyway. Politics is a swamp. And getting real news is hard. So the above > is just a memory dump, not opinion. From spike66 at att.net Sat Jan 12 21:54:41 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 13:54:41 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <50F1CE6D.1010009@aleph.se> References: <50F03A82.4020802@libero.it> <50F1CE6D.1010009@aleph.se> Message-ID: <001e01cdf10f$6cd64e80$4682eb80$@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 Subject: Re: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 On 12/01/2013 20:38, Tomasz Rola wrote: > ... something to do with > storing excess energy from green in power grid (which in this use is > supposed to act as huge capacitor). >... The east European power grids (and probably not the western ones either) were not built for this kind of rapid trading. ... -- Anders Sandberg, This is the one of the biggest and most interesting problems from an engineering point of view. As we go into the future, we can see that some of the contributors to the energy equation will be those which are peaky and unreliable. So load leveling will be what enables ground based solar and wind power. That opens up a whole new world of energy solutions such as solar-driven coal to liquids, and coal to fertilizer cycles. It will be fun to design plants that can react quickly under fluctuating power. spike From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Jan 12 22:05:37 2013 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:05:37 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Humanity Plus election In-Reply-To: <005601cdf031$cd717140$685453c0$@natasha.cc> References: <005601cdf031$cd717140$685453c0$@natasha.cc> Message-ID: Dearest Natasha, On 11 January 2013 20:28, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > What not run for the Board? There are two seats open! > You mean why? Next time perhaps, right now I am recovering from a not-so-trivial byke accident, not to mention some increased professional engagements... > I will ivoice my personal views as a member, but not as an officer of > Humanity+. Anything you?d like to ask? J > Yup. I have not heard from Humanity Plus in a while. Am I still in good standing? Did I forget to register for something? With regard to wta-vote, or whatever it may be called these days, do we have as many votes as place or just one? And... whom do you personally recommend to vote for amongst existing candidates? :-) > There is no wta-talk email list. There is a new list called hplus-talk. > You can join it from the website. Here is a link directly to the sign-up > page: http://lists.list.humanityplus.org/mailman/listinfo/hplus-talk > I am going to check whether I am am already a subscriber or not, thank you. Any chance you have an opportunity to pass by Milan any time soon? Yours sincerely, -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sat Jan 12 22:23:13 2013 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:23:13 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <001e01cdf10f$6cd64e80$4682eb80$@att.net> References: <50F03A82.4020802@libero.it> <50F1CE6D.1010009@aleph.se> <001e01cdf10f$6cd64e80$4682eb80$@att.net> Message-ID: <20130112222313.GF6172@leitl.org> On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 01:54:41PM -0800, spike wrote: > This is the one of the biggest and most interesting problems from an > engineering point of view. As we go into the future, we can see that some > of the contributors to the energy equation will be those which are peaky and It has been known for decades that e.g. Germany's grid is old, and has not been designed to deal with decentral injection of variable loads. It's an infrastructure problem, and control problem. Not unsolvable, but needs efforts and money. In absence of both, the situation will start approaching the current situation in the US (waaaay more obsolete grid, frequent brownouts to blackouts, so need for local diesel backup). > unreliable. So load leveling will be what enables ground based solar and When you're at 40% level you can start thinking about storage. Before, you would want to be able to separate input into grid when it's in danger to become destabilized. In order to still make use of that load you could dump it into hydrogen and natural gas. > wind power. That opens up a whole new world of energy solutions such as > solar-driven coal to liquids, and coal to fertilizer cycles. It will be fun Coal is dead. Nitrogen fixation is about 1% of total energy. As that is methane, water electrolysis hydrogen from peaking solar and wind will be very easy to substitute. > to design plants that can react quickly under fluctuating power. No need for quickly. 2-3 days (duh, weather forecast) is plenty of forewarning. Gas turbines ramp up in 2-3 hours. The problem with peak gas plants is that they're not cost-effective, because they have to run so rarely! So you will need subsidies for peak gas turbine plants, and penalties for coal, aka cutting the (still massive) subsidies for coal. Of course China and the rest of Asia will compensate for that, but that's on their moral books. Morality is not relative. From rtomek at ceti.pl Sun Jan 13 02:18:02 2013 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 03:18:02 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <50F1CE6D.1010009@aleph.se> References: <50F03A82.4020802@libero.it> <50F1CE6D.1010009@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Sat, 12 Jan 2013, Anders Sandberg wrote: [...] > You don't need to add politics to the mix, but it certainly can make it > even more volatile. Believe or not, I sometimes dream about mixing it out of many things, but as I wake up I always conclude this is undoable (or impractical) - since to me politics is business by another name [1], and business is not going away from us (with both good and bad consequences of this). Also, I think that it's worth to always be wary of this biz-pol connection. A number of times, people keep asking questions (including this place) but otherwise seem to forget such connection exists, and perhaps could hint some answers if researched. [2] In other words, I don't think the solution to energy problem is going to be merely by ways of technology. If we were this rational, and if this was such one-dimensional problem, it would have been long solved, IMHO. [1] Yes, this, connected to Clausewitz, gives us "war is a business behind double mask". [2] No, in spite of me being aware, no divination occured to me so far. Still trying, but I'm short of live chicken so it will take a while :-/ . Unless somebody sends me a spare virgin, please? A she-virgin, if that's not a problem. > Generally, energy markets seem to be a fine thing, except that demand > and supply fluctuate separately, and there are hard limits on transfer > ability and how quickly production can be stepped up or down. That makes > the efficiency a bit iffy: the price feedback mechanism is too weak. > Planned energy markets instead run headlong into the information > problem. Perhaps not all interested parties are involved in the talks. Or they cannot reach common conclusion. 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 Sun Jan 13 06:14:48 2013 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 07:14:48 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <20130112213141.GD6172@leitl.org> References: <50F03A82.4020802@libero.it> <20130112213141.GD6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sat, 12 Jan 2013, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sat, Jan 12, 2013 at 09:38:07PM +0100, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > The story, after some additional poking, seems far from complete - in > > its current form, at least. It may hint that Germany had hit some kind > > of technological roadblock, which may have something to do with > > storing > > The roadblock is mostly political. It doesn't matter, as the prices are > speaking quite loudly, and people are quite fed up with the situation. > > Expect more guerilla style photovoltaics, and advent of micro-and > nanogrids. I don't know much about this stuff but one thing I really remember from school is that Universe plays against us (or rather, it doesn't like us to make changes - no, this is my wording, my teachers were a bit more sophisticated :-) ). I would expect a technical roadblock just because of this. And if there was none, I would bet we were a simulation, a rather linear one. About guerilla guys - I don't want to sink your expectations, but AFAIK they don't scale up. There are no guerilla governments, corporations or other high level organisations. I am sure the micro/nano grids will deliver, but I'm not so sure how they will do after connecting into big system. Perhaps some nasty factor will grow exponentially with size. Even quadratic growth can stop it. > > excess energy from green in power grid (which in this use is supposed > > to act as huge capacitor). > > You don't need storage until some quite ridiculous fraction of total > contribution (Germany had 21.9% renewable of total electricity in 2012, > after 20.3% in 2011 and 16.4% in 2010). Ordinarily, 25% would have been > expected, but wind was anomalously low in December. > > Total demand declined 1.4%, and net export was highest ever with 23 TWh. Remarkable. I like the attitude but I guess the rate of renewable adoption is going to be limited by some of factors. For example, I can see one type of solar cells require cadmium telluride - tellurium is very rare, and cadmium is toxic. As they write here: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tellurium#Production ] "The principal source of tellurium is from anode sludges produced during the electrolytic refining of blister copper. It is a component of dusts from blast furnace refining of lead. Treatment of 500 tons of copper ore typically yields one pound (0.45 kg) of tellurium." So, very hard to obtain, it seems. Worldwide, yearly production of tellurium is about 110-120 tons or so it seems. Sure, production can be improved, etc etc. But, assuming 1g of such rare element is required for 1 square meter of panel, with 20% efficiency 1 sq m gives about 200W in some preferable conditions [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_cell_efficiency ] so... [6]> (defconstant +terawatt+ (expt 10 12)) +TERAWATT+ [7]> (/ +terawatt+ 200) 5000000000 [8]> (format nil "~r panels" (/ +terawatt+ 200)) "five billion panels" and... [11]> (format nil "~r tons of rare element" (/ +terawatt+ (* 200 1000 1000))) "five thousand tons of rare element" With yearly production of 120t of such element, to make 1TW worth of panels requires about 40 years. If we require some easier obtainable metal, like indium, its possible to have about 1100-1200 tons a year, so with above assumptions it takes only 4 years to make a TW-worth of panels. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indium#Production ] Now, it is said with current tech a panel lives for about 20 years, 35 max. So after we make 5-7TW, whole production needs to be turned into replacement units. Based on the above, I can see that we are not going to reach a goal of saving humanity from eating itself. At least not with (current) solar alone. And there are going to be mutually exclusive demands for various elements coming from various sectors of industry - for example, we need indium to make LCDs too. Also, I doubt very much it is possible to reach 1TW even in 10 years - from what I have seen it would require almost doubling panel production every year from current levels, about 24GW-worth of panels worldwide in 2010: [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_photovoltaics_production ] The problem is, it's rather easy to go from one manufacturing plant to two, even 16. But 64? With 1024-fold increase, we could grow out from 16TW footprint, but I guess this is impossible to do in ten years. It's not about just setting up plants, they will require some additional infrastructure and other plants to sustain their production. Something's got to change to make this equation more plausible. I assume efficiency of solar cell could be doubled, but again, this will take time and if there are plants built, they will have to reorient themselves. Industrial planning is a mess and I am an ignorant, so if I just reinvented the wheel or if my wheel is triangle, I'd like to know :-). > > There is also the related political problem - like a possible German > > dependency on Russian energy and raw materials exports. This includes > > not > > Monseigneur Sabatier would like to have a word with ???????? ?????. > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction > > Energy independency is quite feasible for high-density industrial > nations. The math does check out. Yes, it is doable. But does the math take a safety into account? I think it is more like dynamic game theory, with variables changing over time and changing the equations in effect. This is not static. I mean, what would gospodin P's reaction be? In what ways applying of Sabatier reaction into real life can be sabotaged? Think of overall effect of antinuc sentiment. I hear it is clean, mostly safe, other than few mishaps. And yet lots of people does not want it, even go to claims that coal energy is safer (with possibly more radioactivity released from huge coal plant a year than from all nuc plants combined - and now compare treatment of ash with treatment of nuc waste). [...] > > from what I have heard once, Soviets liked to finance green parties. > > They > > Pics, or it didn't happen. If I had the pics, man, if I only had the pics... (well, maybe not, why would I want to have such pics, nothing pretty there to see). Otherwise, the hypothesis (or speculation, if you prefer) seems quite plausible. Anti-nuc demonstrations I remember from mid-80-ties were very much in accord with Soviet foreign policy, AFAICT. It would surprise me if I could verify they were not involved in instigating. > > really liked this (but I guess if Soviets had ever won, greens would > > have > > One evil empire down, one's still to go. And just what are we gonna do > after? Pax americana is drawing to an end. Things do look murky and > (a)murrkier. It seems like Pax-a is going to end, but it's also quite possible we will not see it very fast. The big ship can go along for quite some time even when engines fall off. Now, US is still well ahead in terms of military at least. The only thing that can drown them in foreseable future, is IMHO the childish public pressing for some unfavorable changes. Thanks to their entertainment industry, childishness is taking over the world (you think I'm wrong? tell this to hobbit/jedi lovers). For a moment, English should suffice. But I'd like to give a kick to my beginner's German and/or French. As for Chinese, no chance I get proficiency (no, it takes years of heavy use), unless Singularity comes soon. But I may learn a bit, just for the gigs. I think it will take at least 20 years before I could seriously need Chinese here. > > been among the first to work in Siberia, this is how stuff works). And > > Siberia is busily eating itself. Russian Far East is pretty much now > Chinese, anyway. This is what I have heard about it, too. Still, to really claim those areas China will have to grow sustainably with Russia unable to react. And AFAIK Russians are really good in such games. It may take many decades, assuming Chinese are able to deliver all the time, which I somehow doubt. I mean, it's not like low level Russian is strong and patriotic. But the upper level wants to hold on. Not surprising. Or maybe they will reach some agreement. Afterall, in case of confrontation, the philosophy of "u nas mnogo lyudiei" (we have loads of people - so it doesn't matter if we loose 5, 15 or 50 million) is not going to favor Russians. Or maybe they have already reached it. Few years ago. Or maybe Russians are trading to buy themselves more time. As I wrote, they are good. Byzantium had fallen few times and even the last one wasn't certain at once. > What do you do with a maliciously unreliable supplier? Why, you bypass > him. Very optimistic. > > typical Westerner thinks more like "I have the money, I want to pay, > > so I > > Somebody fetch me a typical Westerner. Gogled: http://www.flickr.com/photos/worldmarch/4149571702/ Heh... 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 Jan 13 07:19:22 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 12 Jan 2013 23:19:22 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Humanity Plus election In-Reply-To: References: <005601cdf031$cd717140$685453c0$@natasha.cc> Message-ID: <003c01cdf15e$4fc23580$ef46a080$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj ! >.You mean why? Next time perhaps, right now I am recovering from a not-so-trivial byke accident.-- Stefano Vaj Owwwww, sorry to hear of it, Stefano. Broken bones? Road rash? Best wishes for a speedy and complete recovery. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Sun Jan 13 09:28:20 2013 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 10:28:20 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: <50F03A82.4020802@libero.it> <20130112213141.GD6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20130113092820.GN6172@leitl.org> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 07:14:48AM +0100, Tomasz Rola wrote: > About guerilla guys - I don't want to sink your expectations, but AFAIK > they don't scale up. There are no guerilla governments, corporations or What I meant is that that people will start using cheap other high level organisations. I am sure the micro/nano grids will I personally will do a parallel insular 12 V installation, probably this spring. > deliver, but I'm not so sure how they will do after connecting into big > system. Perhaps some nasty factor will grow exponentially with size. Even > quadratic growth can stop it. > > > > excess energy from green in power grid (which in this use is supposed > > > to act as huge capacitor). > > > > You don't need storage until some quite ridiculous fraction of total > > contribution (Germany had 21.9% renewable of total electricity in 2012, > > after 20.3% in 2011 and 16.4% in 2010). Ordinarily, 25% would have been > > expected, but wind was anomalously low in December. > > > > Total demand declined 1.4%, and net export was highest ever with 23 TWh. > > Remarkable. I like the attitude but I guess the rate of renewable adoption > is going to be limited by some of factors. For example, I can see one type > of solar cells require cadmium telluride - tellurium is very rare, and There's no need for a particular substrate for PV. Scarcity doesn't apply, the EROEI is a lot more limiting factor. > cadmium is toxic. As they write here: > .... > [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indium#Production ] > > Now, it is said with current tech a panel lives for about 20 years, 35 > max. So after we make 5-7TW, whole production needs to be turned into > replacement units. Yes, you need to recycle the scarcer elements. You wouldn't bother with carbon or silicon. > Based on the above, I can see that we are not going to reach a goal of > saving humanity from eating itself. At least not with (current) solar > alone. We need 3 TWp/year deployment rate, for the next 40 years. We're a factor of 100 too low. Yes, a number of people are going to die. That's the price you pay by wasting the last 40 years. > And there are going to be mutually exclusive demands for various elements > coming from various sectors of industry - for example, we need indium to > make LCDs too. Technology changes more quickly now. > Also, I doubt very much it is possible to reach 1TW even in 10 years - > from what I have seen it would require almost doubling panel production > every year from current levels, about 24GW-worth of panels worldwide in It was about 31 GW last year. Far too low, yes. > 2010: > > [ > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_photovoltaics_production > > ] > > The problem is, it's rather easy to go from one manufacturing plant to > two, even 16. But 64? With 1024-fold increase, we could grow out from 16TW > footprint, but I guess this is impossible to do in ten years. It's not Yes, this is anti-Moore. > about just setting up plants, they will require some additional > infrastructure and other plants to sustain their production. > > Something's got to change to make this equation more plausible. I assume > efficiency of solar cell could be doubled, but again, this will take time It will probably take the next 20 years to push to 40%. I would consider efficiency to be effectively a constant. > and if there are plants built, they will have to reorient themselves. > > Industrial planning is a mess and I am an ignorant, so if I just > reinvented the wheel or if my wheel is triangle, I'd like to know :-). > > > > There is also the related political problem - like a possible German > > > dependency on Russian energy and raw materials exports. This includes > > > not > > > > Monseigneur Sabatier would like to have a word with ???????? ?????. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabatier_reaction > > > > Energy independency is quite feasible for high-density industrial > > nations. The math does check out. > > Yes, it is doable. But does the math take a safety into account? I think > it is more like dynamic game theory, with variables changing over time and > changing the equations in effect. This is not static. I mean, what would > gospodin P's reaction be? In what ways applying of Sabatier reaction into He wouldn't care, because he would be still able to sell everything he can produce. > real life can be sabotaged? Think of overall effect of antinuc sentiment. You cannot sabotage decentral, local processes. > I hear it is clean, mostly safe, other than few mishaps. And yet lots of It's all 100% propaganda. > people does not want it, even go to claims that coal energy is safer (with We no longer have any options. Humanity will now attempt to burn anything with a borderline useful EROEI, and some even not, out of sheer desperation. > possibly more radioactivity released from huge coal plant a year than from > all nuc plants combined - and now compare treatment of ash with treatment > of nuc waste). > > [...] > > > from what I have heard once, Soviets liked to finance green parties. > > > They > > > > Pics, or it didn't happen. > > If I had the pics, man, if I only had the pics... (well, maybe not, why > would I want to have such pics, nothing pretty there to see). Otherwise, > the hypothesis (or speculation, if you prefer) seems quite plausible. > Anti-nuc demonstrations I remember from mid-80-ties were very much in > accord with Soviet foreign policy, AFAICT. It would surprise me if I could > verify they were not involved in instigating. The Greens have been a part of the corrupt, conservative establishment here for the last 10-15 years. They've stopped being left somewhere in 1990s. > > > > really liked this (but I guess if Soviets had ever won, greens would > > > have > > > > One evil empire down, one's still to go. And just what are we gonna do > > after? Pax americana is drawing to an end. Things do look murky and > > (a)murrkier. ... From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Jan 13 16:38:18 2013 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:38:18 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Humanity Plus election In-Reply-To: <003c01cdf15e$4fc23580$ef46a080$@att.net> References: <005601cdf031$cd717140$685453c0$@natasha.cc> <003c01cdf15e$4fc23580$ef46a080$@att.net> Message-ID: On 13 January 2013 08:19, spike wrote: > *From:* extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto: > extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On Behalf Of *Stefano Vaj > >?You mean why? Next time perhaps, right now I am recovering from a > not-so-trivial byke accident?-- Stefano Vaj > > > Owwwww, sorry to hear of it, Stefano. > Oops. My previous message was intended as private one, I did not mean to broadcast the world about my current unfortunate circumstances... :-) > Broken bones? Road rash? > Yes, the usual. Collarbone, a couple of ribs, cranial trauma... Best wishes for a speedy and complete recovery. > Thank you! I am already back (somehow) typing, as you can see... -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Jan 13 17:34:35 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 09:34:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] italian byke accident Message-ID: <005301cdf1b4$41fd50a0$c5f7f1e0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj . >.Yes, the usual. Collarbone, a couple of ribs, cranial trauma... Thank you! I am already back (somehow) typing, as you can see...-- Stefano Vaj Owwww, damn. Cranial trauma? So what you're saying is: Ho rotto la mia testa, ma non le mie dita. Do wear a helmet, me lad. We value highly your commentary here. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rtomek at ceti.pl Sun Jan 13 18:16:48 2013 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:16:48 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] italian byke accident In-Reply-To: <005301cdf1b4$41fd50a0$c5f7f1e0$@att.net> References: <005301cdf1b4$41fd50a0$c5f7f1e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, 13 Jan 2013, spike wrote: > From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj > . > > > >.Yes, the usual. Collarbone, a couple of ribs, cranial trauma... Thank > >you! > I am already back (somehow) typing, as you can see...-- Stefano Vaj That's good! I have read the subject and "byke" morphed into "byk" (Polish for bull), and so on until I imagined you riding a "byk". It's not as bad as they have in Pampeluna, where bikes are riding all over running people (who, for some rather perverted reason, come again for more of this - actually, I wonder, maybe I would like it too, kind of massage only with bike rolling over me?). Those bikes are beasts, I tell you. > Owwww, damn. Cranial trauma? So what you're saying is: Ho rotto la > mia testa, ma non le mie dita. > > Do wear a helmet, me lad. We value highly your commentary here. Just pay attention and make sure you don't wear red when you ride a bike next time. 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 Sun Jan 13 17:50:57 2013 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:50:57 +0100 Subject: [ExI] italian byke accident In-Reply-To: <005301cdf1b4$41fd50a0$c5f7f1e0$@att.net> References: <005301cdf1b4$41fd50a0$c5f7f1e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 13 January 2013 18:34, spike wrote: > Do wear a helmet, me lad. We value highly your commentary here. Thank you. The helmet worked well, the head got only the slightest concussion. Too bad I did not have a power suit ? la Starship Troopers, or a byke better behaved on ice, as well. :-) -- Stefano Vaj From rtomek at ceti.pl Sun Jan 13 18:50:09 2013 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 19:50:09 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] US to become 'net energy exporter' (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, 12 Jan 2013, Tomasz Rola wrote: > As of CO2, I don't consider it very big issue (but it is an issue, just > very overhyped, at least from my POV). I have already given some thoughts > on this few days ago. Um, nope. I was few weeks ago ("Forbes posting" thread). Too busy, time compressed itself. 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 rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Jan 13 15:39:22 2013 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 10:39:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cryonics vs. chemopreservation Message-ID: I am very supportive of both cryonics and chemopreservation of brains. Unfortunately, at present both have severe drawbacks. Cryonics is available now and almost certainly preserves the material underpinnings of a mind but it is a fragile procedure: All you need for failure is either a massive nitrogen spill (sabotage, earthquake, etc.) or a 3 month stoppage in nitrogen delivery (Alcor going bankrupt, massive energy supply fluctuations due to EMP weapon use, etc.), occurring at any time in the next 30 - 100 years. On the other hand, chemopreservation is theoretically very robust - room temp brains in distributed storage are much less likely to be destroyed by focal attacks (there is no centralized storage facility), or by social upheaval interrupting the use of high technology - since there is no high technology involved in the storage part. Yet, chemopreservation at present does have significant technological problems at the preservation stage, with concerns about preservative delivery, and questions about whether the synaptic weight information can be adequately recovered. The concerns about chemopresevation could be significantly allayed by a demonstration of preservation and recovery of memory in animals. The ideal would be the preservation of a mouse trained for a specific task, followed by mouse brain uploading and demonstration of the specific learned behavior in the uploaded mind. This might become possible in the next 10 - 20 years. For now however, it would be useful to demonstrate the preservation of recoverable engrams in yet simpler organism: the worm. Worms learn: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Pathogenic%20bacteria%20induce%20aversive%20olfactory%20learning The full map of the worm nervous system has been known for years. A research project aiming to recover memories from chemopreserved worms would be a fascinating exercise from a basic neuroscience point of view (very important for obtaining funding), should be feasible without the development of new equipment or protocols, and would provide a tentative rebuttal to the claims that chemopreservation does not preserve the elusive memory engram. Of course, the engram in a worm and the engram in a human are not the same thing, biologically, but there is enough structural and biochemical overlap between the two nervous systems to draw some conclusions from worm to human. Rafal From rtomek at ceti.pl Sun Jan 13 22:48:58 2013 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 23:48:58 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <20130113092820.GN6172@leitl.org> References: <50F03A82.4020802@libero.it> <20130112213141.GD6172@leitl.org> <20130113092820.GN6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sun, 13 Jan 2013, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 07:14:48AM +0100, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > > About guerilla guys - I don't want to sink your expectations, but AFAIK > > they don't scale up. There are no guerilla governments, corporations or > > What I meant is that that people will start using cheap and plug them directly into wall sockets, thus reducing their rising > power bills. And making life of electricians and grid operators > a lot harder. I see :-) but I guess there is always a possibility on their side to make life of users harder in response. Like, force them to change electricity counters, to such operating in one direction only and "burning" when driven in reverse. When mob gets angry and starts complaining to newspapers, a PR person says something like "uh, blame those diy bastards for the current sorry state of things, we always want only the good for you but they play tricks with the grid and thus we all suffer..." (it could be said in such a way that listeners imagine "diy-b" as thieves, without actually saying so). In case there are more energy providers, they could all do this kind of stuff, either at once or in time span of umpteen months. Of course later on, more people may realize they really want to feed grid with their own energy, so such tricks (FUD etc) are good only for a while. Assuming that people learn, which is optimistic version. But overally, money speaks to both sides, right? If users would want to keep more of theirs in the pockets, providers would want even more to put hands into those pockets, too, because there would be money there. > > other high level organisations. I am sure the micro/nano grids will > > I personally will do a parallel insular 12 V installation, probably > this spring. All right, this is very cool idea. I have been fancing myself with it for some time, but I'm not sure when I could start because first I'll have to deal with a (very physical) heap of printed paper. The bloody heap starts to threaten me, and we sometimes make jokes about various animals living inside - which is not true, of course (or maybe it is, I don't know), even thou animals got bigger over time, I mean, could I host a crocodile there? Yes I could. Well, maybe a young cayman, rather than an old fully grown well fed croc. In worst case, I will buy a cork helmet and harpoon. And maybe start guiding tourists. Other than this small obstacle, I will be glad to give a 12v idea a try. There is plenty of devices and adapters ready, so choice of voltage is good, I think. BTW, are you going to start small (as in experimenting) or are you going to start big (wire all house)? Myself, I will rather start small. There is still a lot to learn, small is easier to redesign etc. I guess it is going to sit on a table during first few incarnations, so very small :-). Perhaps you could write some bits to a blog? 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 joshjob42 at gmail.com Sun Jan 13 20:14:44 2013 From: joshjob42 at gmail.com (Joshua Job) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 12:14:44 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cryonics vs. chemopreservation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Actually, there are two groups working on such a project, though not using chemopreservation. David Dalrymple is using opt genetics to upload the mind if a c. elegans worm. He anticipates completion in a couple of years. http://syntheticneurobiology.org/people/display/144/26 And Openworm is working on building a complete and detailed simulation of c. elegans. http://www.artificialbrains.com/openworm I think one of the reasons Dalrymple is not using chemopreservation is because we simply don't know enough about neurons to look at them and build a model of their behavior. So he is going to essentially watch the worms think and use an algorithm that builds a functional model of each synapse based on the observed behavior (combined with all available biophysical data). -Joshua Job On Jan 13, 2013 11:43 AM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" wrote: > I am very supportive of both cryonics and chemopreservation of brains. > Unfortunately, at present both have severe drawbacks. > > Cryonics is available now and almost certainly preserves the material > underpinnings of a mind but it is a fragile procedure: All you need > for failure is either a massive nitrogen spill (sabotage, earthquake, > etc.) or a 3 month stoppage in nitrogen delivery (Alcor going > bankrupt, massive energy supply fluctuations due to EMP weapon use, > etc.), occurring at any time in the next 30 - 100 years. > > On the other hand, chemopreservation is theoretically very robust - > room temp brains in distributed storage are much less likely to be > destroyed by focal attacks (there is no centralized storage facility), > or by social upheaval interrupting the use of high technology - since > there is no high technology involved in the storage part. Yet, > chemopreservation at present does have significant technological > problems at the preservation stage, with concerns about preservative > delivery, and questions about whether the synaptic weight information > can be adequately recovered. > > The concerns about chemopresevation could be significantly allayed by > a demonstration of preservation and recovery of memory in animals. The > ideal would be the preservation of a mouse trained for a specific > task, followed by mouse brain uploading and demonstration of the > specific learned behavior in the uploaded mind. This might become > possible in the next 10 - 20 years. > > For now however, it would be useful to demonstrate the preservation of > recoverable engrams in yet simpler organism: the worm. Worms learn: > > > http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Pathogenic%20bacteria%20induce%20aversive%20olfactory%20learning > > The full map of the worm nervous system has been known for years. A > research project aiming to recover memories from chemopreserved worms > would be a fascinating exercise from a basic neuroscience point of > view (very important for obtaining funding), should be feasible > without the development of new equipment or protocols, and would > provide a tentative rebuttal to the claims that chemopreservation does > not preserve the elusive memory engram. Of course, the engram in a > worm and the engram in a human are not the same thing, biologically, > but there is enough structural and biochemical overlap between the two > nervous systems to draw some conclusions from worm to human. > > Rafal > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Jan 13 18:22:58 2013 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 18:22:58 +0000 Subject: [ExI] italian byke accident In-Reply-To: <005301cdf1b4$41fd50a0$c5f7f1e0$@att.net> References: <005301cdf1b4$41fd50a0$c5f7f1e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 5:34 PM, spike wrote: > Owwww, damn. Cranial trauma? So what you?re saying is: Ho rotto la mia > testa, ma non le mie dita. > > Do wear a helmet, me lad. We value highly your commentary here. > > This reminds me of one of my hobby horses. If we are into life extension via tablets, medicines, replacement therapies, etc. then a careful lifestyle seems to be another requirement. Courses of magic tablets won't do much good if we smash ourselves to bits. I well know that bikes are fun, (in nice weather anyway), but it's not worth missing the Singularity for. BillK From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Jan 13 22:48:11 2013 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 17:48:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: cryonics vs. chemopreservation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Rafal Smigrodzki Date: Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 5:47 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] cryonics vs. chemopreservation To: Joshua Job On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Joshua Job wrote: > I think one of the reasons Dalrymple is not using chemopreservation is > because we simply don't know enough about neurons to look at them and build > a model of their behavior. So he is going to essentially watch the worms > think and use an algorithm that builds a functional model of each synapse > based on the observed behavior (combined with all available biophysical > data). ### I think this is a very important and valuable project but what I am proposing is more modest: Just a proof that the memories of a pickled worm can be read, not a simulation of a whole worm. The olfactory memories of a worm seem to be mediated in part by serotonergic transmission in sensory interneurons. In the initial part of the project you can zero in on the specific neurons and synapses involved and determine which proteins and which post-translational modifications, if any, are important. Once you know the material determinants of the olfactory engram you can work on measuring them in preserved worms. The final part would be taking a hundred worms, teaching them something, preserving and then having a blinded researcher measure their engrams and separate them from a control group. There would be no need to simulate the nervous system in general, no need to work out the effectors, or understand all the other things that a worm can do - this means you would not have to section and scan whole worms, but rather concentrate on a hopefully very small number of sections, allowing larger numbers of worms to be tested. You just want to see what makes your specially treated worm a learned individual standing out from every Tom, Dick and Harry out there. This might be doable as a PhD thesis and it would have a nice ring to it - imagine the title "Post-mortem reading of olfactory memories in C. elegans". If your thesis adviser is well-regarded in the field, you might shoot for Nature or Science! Rafal -- Rafal Smigrodzki, MD-PhD Senior Scientist, Gencia Corporation 706 B Forest St. Charlottesville, VA 22903 tel: (434) 295-4800 fax: (434) 295-4951 This electronic message transmission contains information from the biotechnology firm of Gencia Corporation which may be confidential or privileged. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual or entity named above. If you are not the intended recipient, be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. If you have received this electronic transmission in error, please notify us by telephone (434-295-4800) or by electronic mail (fportell at genciabiotech.com) immediately. From nanite1018 at gmail.com Sun Jan 13 20:18:54 2013 From: nanite1018 at gmail.com (Joshua Job) Date: Sun, 13 Jan 2013 12:18:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cryonics vs. chemopreservation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Oops, accidentally sent a copy of this from my other email account, which isn't on the ExI list. Sorry! ----- Actually, there are two groups working on such a project, though not using chemopreservation. David Dalrymple is using optogenetics to upload the mind if a c. elegans worm. He anticipates completion in a couple of years. http://syntheticneurobiology.org/people/display/144/26 And Openworm is working on building a complete and detailed simulation of c. elegans. http://www.artificialbrains.com/openworm I think one of the reasons Dalrymple is not using chemopreservation is because we simply don't know enough about neurons to look at them and build a model of their behavior. So he is going to essentially watch the worms think and use an algorithm that builds a functional model of each synapse based on the observed behavior (combined with all available biophysical data). -Joshua Job > > On Jan 13, 2013 11:43 AM, "Rafal Smigrodzki" wrote: >> >> I am very supportive of both cryonics and chemopreservation of brains. >> Unfortunately, at present both have severe drawbacks. >> >> Cryonics is available now and almost certainly preserves the material >> underpinnings of a mind but it is a fragile procedure: All you need >> for failure is either a massive nitrogen spill (sabotage, earthquake, >> etc.) or a 3 month stoppage in nitrogen delivery (Alcor going >> bankrupt, massive energy supply fluctuations due to EMP weapon use, >> etc.), occurring at any time in the next 30 - 100 years. >> >> On the other hand, chemopreservation is theoretically very robust - >> room temp brains in distributed storage are much less likely to be >> destroyed by focal attacks (there is no centralized storage facility), >> or by social upheaval interrupting the use of high technology - since >> there is no high technology involved in the storage part. Yet, >> chemopreservation at present does have significant technological >> problems at the preservation stage, with concerns about preservative >> delivery, and questions about whether the synaptic weight information >> can be adequately recovered. >> >> The concerns about chemopresevation could be significantly allayed by >> a demonstration of preservation and recovery of memory in animals. The >> ideal would be the preservation of a mouse trained for a specific >> task, followed by mouse brain uploading and demonstration of the >> specific learned behavior in the uploaded mind. This might become >> possible in the next 10 - 20 years. >> >> For now however, it would be useful to demonstrate the preservation of >> recoverable engrams in yet simpler organism: the worm. Worms learn: >> >> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Pathogenic%20bacteria%20induce%20aversive%20olfactory%20learning >> >> The full map of the worm nervous system has been known for years. A >> research project aiming to recover memories from chemopreserved worms >> would be a fascinating exercise from a basic neuroscience point of >> view (very important for obtaining funding), should be feasible >> without the development of new equipment or protocols, and would >> provide a tentative rebuttal to the claims that chemopreservation does >> not preserve the elusive memory engram. Of course, the engram in a >> worm and the engram in a human are not the same thing, biologically, >> but there is enough structural and biochemical overlap between the two >> nervous systems to draw some conclusions from worm to human. >> >> Rafal >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 eugen at leitl.org Mon Jan 14 09:49:50 2013 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:49:50 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: <50F03A82.4020802@libero.it> <20130112213141.GD6172@leitl.org> <20130113092820.GN6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20130114094950.GN6172@leitl.org> On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 11:48:58PM +0100, Tomasz Rola wrote: > I see :-) but I guess there is always a possibility on their side to make > life of users harder in response. Like, force them to change electricity > counters, to such operating in one direction only and "burning" when Right now they're trying to introduce smart meters, which stalls so badly the idea appears dead in the water. Just the privacy implications are likely to make this a no-go. > driven in reverse. When mob gets angry and starts complaining to > newspapers, a PR person says something like "uh, blame those diy bastards > for the current sorry state of things, we always want only the good for Right about half of all installations are individually owned smallish-scale plants, officially connected and receiving FITS. As FITS are being phased out, and PV prices are plummeting while electricity costs go up (just 25% since January) we'll likely see smaller-scale plants which just lower your electricity costs and don't bother with buffering feeding-in (with 300 Wp your energy counter is likely to never run backwards, just slower). > Of course later on, more people may realize they really want to feed grid > with their own energy, so such tricks (FUD etc) are good only for a while. > Assuming that people learn, which is optimistic version. This is the current status in Germany. > But overally, money speaks to both sides, right? If users would want to > keep more of theirs in the pockets, providers would want even more to put > hands into those pockets, too, because there would be money there. Right now energy providers are shitting bricks because the expensive peak power is completely cut off almost all of the time, so they're losing money, and are forced to jack up night power prices. > > > other high level organisations. I am sure the micro/nano grids will > > > > I personally will do a parallel insular 12 V installation, probably > > this spring. > > All right, this is very cool idea. I have been fancing myself with it for > some time, but I'm not sure when I could start because first I'll have to > deal with a (very physical) heap of printed paper. The bloody heap starts I can relate. I spent probably a week housecleaning. Taxes for 2011 still not done, but should be there this week. We've got plenty of work on our hands with cryonics lab as well. > to threaten me, and we sometimes make jokes about various animals living > inside - which is not true, of course (or maybe it is, I don't know), even > thou animals got bigger over time, I mean, could I host a crocodile there? > Yes I could. Well, maybe a young cayman, rather than an old fully grown > well fed croc. In worst case, I will buy a cork helmet and harpoon. And > maybe start guiding tourists. Same thing with cables and hardware here. > Other than this small obstacle, I will be glad to give a 12v idea a try. > There is plenty of devices and adapters ready, so choice of voltage is > good, I think. If wire crossection is large and paths short 12 V isn't much of a handicap. > BTW, are you going to start small (as in experimenting) or are you going > to start big (wire all house)? Myself, I will rather start small. There I plan to wire just my work room, and keep the PV panels less than 5 m away. The idea is to power a small but important parts (e.g. gas furnace in the cellar in case grid is down, LED lighting, Internet connection and some low-power computers, mesh and ham radio). It appears to be quite feasible for a is still a lot to learn, small is easier to redesign etc. I guess it is > going to sit on a table during first few incarnations, so very small :-). > > Perhaps you could write some bits to a blog? From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jan 14 10:17:58 2013 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 10:17:58 +0000 Subject: [ExI] cryonics vs. chemopreservation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 8:18 PM, Joshua Job wrote: > Oops, accidentally sent a copy of this from my other email account, which > isn't on the ExI list. Sorry! > > ----- > > > Actually, there are two groups working on such a project, though not using > chemopreservation. > > I received both messages and both are in the mail list archives. Looks as though Exi-chat likes both your addresses. BillK From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jan 14 15:34:50 2013 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 08:34:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Humanity Plus election In-Reply-To: References: <005601cdf031$cd717140$685453c0$@natasha.cc> Message-ID: <00d701cdf26c$b12d7af0$138870d0$@natasha.cc> Hi all, I didn't see this email until today. Sorry about the byke (bike?) accident. Milan? I miss it, so it would be great to visit sometime in the coming year. Bty, when the candidates send in their statements, etc. and we put up the website, I will let you know who I personally think would be great for the organization and its members. Best, Natasha From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj Sent: Saturday, January 12, 2013 3:06 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Humanity Plus election Dearest Natasha, On 11 January 2013 20:28, Natasha Vita-More wrote: What not run for the Board? There are two seats open! You mean why? Next time perhaps, right now I am recovering from a not-so-trivial byke accident, not to mention some increased professional engagements... I will ivoice my personal views as a member, but not as an officer of Humanity+. Anything you'd like to ask? J Yup. I have not heard from Humanity Plus in a while. Am I still in good standing? Did I forget to register for something? With regard to wta-vote, or whatever it may be called these days, do we have as many votes as place or just one? And... whom do you personally recommend to vote for amongst existing candidates? :-) There is no wta-talk email list. There is a new list called hplus-talk. You can join it from the website. Here is a link directly to the sign-up page: http://lists.list.humanityplus.org/mailman/listinfo/hplus-talk I am going to check whether I am am already a subscriber or not, thank you. Any chance you have an opportunity to pass by Milan any time soon? Yours sincerely, -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jan 14 18:43:36 2013 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 13:43:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cryonics vs. chemopreservation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > Cryonics is available now and almost certainly preserves the material > underpinnings of a mind That could very well be true and I certainly hope it's true but I think its pushing it to say its almost certainly true. > chemopreservation at present does have significant technological > problems at the preservation stage, with concerns about preservative > delivery, and questions about whether the synaptic weight information > can be adequately recovered. > When neuroscientists try to trace out all the connections in the brain, as in the very ambitious Blue Brain Project, they first use chemicals to preserve the brain and then slice it into very thin slices; they don't freeze the brain, so I guess they think chemopreservation works better than cryonics. Perhaps there is a practical reason Alcor doesn't offer it, maybe it's too expensive, I could be wrong but I don't see why it should cost more than cryonics. At any rate I'd still like to know what Alcor's official position on chemopreservation is. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Jan 14 19:45:18 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 11:45:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [tt] Molecular robot mimics life's protein-builder In-Reply-To: <20130114161951.GD6172@leitl.org> References: <20130114161951.GD6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: <009801cdf28f$af480430$0dd80c90$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl Subject: [tt] Molecular robot mimics life's protein-builder >?http://www.nature.com/news/molecular-robot-mimics-life-s-protein-builder-1.12190 Gene, is not this an example of a nano-machine creating a covalent bond? Is not a nano-machine creating a covalent bond exactly the mega-holy nano-grail the nay-saying crowd insists cannot be done? spike >?Nature | News Molecular robot mimics life's protein-builder Ribosome-inspired nanomachine links amino acids in pre-determined sequence. Mark Peplow 10 January 2013 The ribosome, the molecular machine that translates our genetic code to build the body?s proteins, is a mechanical marvel. Now, chemists have invented a nanomachine that can achieve a similar feat. The artificial system is not about to displace nature?s ribosome, a complex of proteins and RNA. It is much simpler, and only about about one-tenth of the size ? and, it is achingly slow, destroys the code it reads and can produce only very short chunks of protein, known as peptides. It does, however, show that some of the tactics of biology?s molecular machines can be adopted to make useful chemicals. ?We were inspired by the ribosome,? says synthetic chemist Dave Leigh at the University of Manchester, UK, who led the team behind the development. ?But our machine is extremely primitive compared to the ribosome.? With molecules for moving parts, this nanorobot links together amino acids (colored balls) by attaching them to a moving ring (blue). Miriam Wilson Leigh?s system relies on a rotaxane ? a large molecular ring threaded onto another molecule that acts as an axle. The axle is lined with three amino acids, and a chain of three more amino acids hangs from the outer edge of the ring. One of the amino acids attached to the ring is cysteine, which contains a crucial sulphur-containing thiol group1. Heating the system prompts the thiol group to pluck an amino acid from the axle and transfer it to the end of the chain of amino acids attached to the ring. The ring can then move along the axle and repeat the same trick with the next two amino acids. Unthreading the ring and breaking off the newly-formed chain delivers a perfectly formed peptide made from all six amino acids. ?It?s one of Dave?s best papers,? says physical organic chemist Alan Rowan at Radboud University Nijmegen in the Netherlands, who also works with rotaxanes. ?It?s the first example of a rotaxane performing a sequential reaction, and that?s a big step forwards.? Although Leigh?s rotaxane mimics the ribosome in its sequential building of peptides, the sulphur-assisted amino acid transfer is found elsewhere in biology: some bacteria rely on it to synthesize proteins. It has also become a standard technique in laboratory protein synthesis. Running about 1018 of Leigh?s molecular machines at once can produce tens of milligrams of peptide. But it is a slow process, taking about 12 hours to attach each amino acid in the sequence. The ribosome, by contrast, attaches 15?20 amino acids per second. Future flexibility In its present incarnation, the nanomachine requires the axle to be preloaded with amino acids in the correct sequence. This mean that it can assemble just one peptide, by contrast with the ribosome, which grabs amino acids out of the liquid medium in which it is immersed and assembles them in the right order according to a nucleic-acid template. In the future, the team hopes to develop a version of the machine that can do something similar. Its axle would have selective binding sites. Once the amino acids have been stripped off the axle, the axle would 'reload', with new amino acids binding to those sites in the right order. Leigh?s machine will probably never compete with automated methods of making peptides. But he hopes that it could help to move chemistry beyond its two-centuries-old habit of making molecules using stepwise processes ? adding a chemical group, purifying and isolating the product, then adding another group. ?It?s laborious and not as effective as biology,? says Leigh. Leigh and other chemists have already used rotaxanes to move droplets of fluid around2; encode binary data3; deliver drugs to specific sites4; and even switch a chemical catalyst on or off5. Molecular machines inspired by biology could eventually enable chemists to build materials with a specific sequence of molecules ? a strand of polystyrene in which each component bears one of a range of extra chemical groups, for example. This could give the materials unusual chemical or physical properties, or even allow them to be encoded with information, as nature does with DNA. ?That?s how biology does it, so why can?t we?? asks Leigh. Nature doi:10.1038/nature.2013.12190 References Lewandowski, B. et al. Science 339, 189?193 (2013). Article PubMed ChemPort Show context Bern?, J. et al. Nature Mater. 4, 704?710 (2005). Article PubMed ISI ChemPort Show context Tian, H. & Wang, Q.-C. Chem. Soc. Rev. 35, 361?374 (2006). Article PubMed ISI ChemPort Show context Dam, H. H. & Caruso, F. ACS Nano 6, 4686?4693 (2012). Article PubMed ISI ChemPort Show context Blanco, V., Carlone, A., H?nni, K. D., Leigh, D. A. & Lewandowski, B. Angew. Chem. Int. Ed. 51, 5166?5169 (2012). _______________________________________________ tt mailing list tt at postbiota.org http://postbiota.org/mailman/listinfo/tt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From joshjob42 at gmail.com Mon Jan 14 20:26:50 2013 From: joshjob42 at gmail.com (Joshua Job) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 12:26:50 -0800 Subject: [ExI] cryonics vs. chemopreservation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It is really hard to slice a glass or ice into micron thick sheets without fracturing, and that's a necessary step when tracing the connectome. That, and they also have to dye the brain tissue before putting it under the microscope, and you can't do that with a frozen brain. Cyropreservation probably also changes the morphology of the neurons a good deal too (either due to ice crystal formation or dehydration) whih would make figuring out the connectome harder (though obviously not impossible), and it's already a hard enough task. -Joshua Job. On Jan 14, 2013 11:49 AM, "John Clark" wrote: > On Sun, Jan 13, 2013 at 10:39 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki < > rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > > > Cryonics is available now and almost certainly preserves the material >> underpinnings of a mind > > > That could very well be true and I certainly hope it's true but I think > its pushing it to say its almost certainly true. > > > chemopreservation at present does have significant technological >> problems at the preservation stage, with concerns about preservative >> delivery, and questions about whether the synaptic weight information >> can be adequately recovered. >> > > When neuroscientists try to trace out all the connections in the brain, as > in the very ambitious Blue Brain Project, they first use chemicals to > preserve the brain and then slice it into very thin slices; they don't > freeze the brain, so I guess they think chemopreservation works better than > cryonics. Perhaps there is a practical reason Alcor doesn't offer it, maybe > it's too expensive, I could be wrong but I don't see why it should cost > more than cryonics. > > At any rate I'd still like to know what Alcor's official position on > chemopreservation is. > > John K Clark > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 14 19:09:45 2013 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 14:09:45 -0500 Subject: [ExI] cryonics vs. chemopreservation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:43 PM, John Clark wrote: > At any rate I'd still like to know what Alcor's official position on > chemopreservation is. ### You might want to read Aschwin de Wolf's article on this: http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/chemopreservation.html Rafal From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Mon Jan 14 22:39:52 2013 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 23:39:52 +0100 Subject: [ExI] italian byke accident In-Reply-To: References: <005301cdf1b4$41fd50a0$c5f7f1e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 13 January 2013 19:22, BillK wrote: > I well know that bikes are fun, (in nice weather anyway) > Alas, they are not so ice-friendly... :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jan 15 07:32:50 2013 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:32:50 +0100 Subject: [ExI] cryonics vs. chemopreservation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130115073250.GJ6172@leitl.org> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 02:09:45PM -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:43 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > At any rate I'd still like to know what Alcor's official position on > > chemopreservation is. > > ### You might want to read Aschwin de Wolf's article on this: > > http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/chemopreservation.html I wouldn't take that article as gospel yet. From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jan 15 07:59:56 2013 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 08:59:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] [tt] Molecular robot mimics life's protein-builder In-Reply-To: <009801cdf28f$af480430$0dd80c90$@att.net> References: <20130114161951.GD6172@leitl.org> <009801cdf28f$af480430$0dd80c90$@att.net> Message-ID: <20130115075956.GO6172@leitl.org> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 11:45:18AM -0800, spike wrote: > Gene, is not this an example of a nano-machine creating a covalent bond? Creating or breaking bond is not scale-dependant. > Is not a nano-machine creating a covalent bond exactly the mega-holy nano-grail the nay-saying crowd insists cannot be done? I don't recall that particular objection. Smalley mentioned the 'fat finger' problem, which is real for soft, floppy enzyme-like systems, but not relevant for rigid cages depositing highly reactive moieties, which work pretty much like today's numerically controlled rapid prototyping. From eugen at leitl.org Tue Jan 15 09:21:26 2013 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 10:21:26 +0100 Subject: [ExI] cryonics vs. chemopreservation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130115092126.GX6172@leitl.org> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:26:50PM -0800, Joshua Job wrote: > It is really hard to slice a glass or ice into micron thick sheets without > fracturing, and that's a necessary step when tracing the connectome. That, This is incorrect. Ion milling and serial block scanning microscopy (if stained with heavy metals for contrast, for anything else you'd need a different imaging modality, still surface, though) work well enough. > and they also have to dye the brain tissue before putting it under the > microscope, and you can't do that with a frozen brain. Cyropreservation The jury is out whether you can combine perfusion and staining in one step, using the vascular system which still intact (so you'll probably have to hit the animal while still alive). I'm skeptical, but ready to be convinced by evidence. > probably also changes the morphology of the neurons a good deal too (either > due to ice crystal formation or dehydration) whih would make figuring out There is no ice crystal formation with vitrification. Shrinking might indeed be a problem with at least some cryoprotectants, it is not known yet. > the connectome harder (though obviously not impossible), and it's already a > hard enough task. Notice that it *might* be possible to do room temperature vitrification, which would obviate need for refrigeration yet leave tissue potentially viable (at least, not a total brick). It will probably wreck the cell membranes rather soon, though, unless you can do some selective magic there. From max at maxmore.com Tue Jan 15 08:31:45 2013 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 01:31:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] cryonics vs. chemopreservation In-Reply-To: <20130115073250.GJ6172@leitl.org> References: <20130115073250.GJ6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: No one is saying to take it as gospel, but it's a good analysis of the issues. Better than anything to date. As I said (here or in another post tonight), there will be a follow-up comment from Mike Darwin and response from Aschwin. Darwin's criticisms, if correct, only reinforce the core message that chemopreservation is not currently a superior or even viable alternative to cryopreservation. Eugen: The comments I've seen from you seemed to suggest general agreement with Aschwin's piece. Is that not the case, or are you simply dubious about certain specifics? What bothers me is that some people (notably John Smart) are going about strongly promoting the idea of chemopreservation as a superior option today, when the best evidence says that is not the case. --Max On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 02:09:45PM -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:43 PM, John Clark > wrote: > > > > > At any rate I'd still like to know what Alcor's official position on > > > chemopreservation is. > > > > ### You might want to read Aschwin de Wolf's article on this: > > > > http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/chemopreservation.html > > I wouldn't take that article as gospel yet. > _______________________________________________ > 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 eugen at leitl.org Tue Jan 15 10:38:14 2013 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:38:14 +0100 Subject: [ExI] cryonics vs. chemopreservation In-Reply-To: References: <20130115073250.GJ6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20130115103814.GE6172@leitl.org> On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 01:31:45AM -0700, Max More wrote: > No one is saying to take it as gospel, but it's a good analysis of the > issues. Better than anything to date. As I said (here or in another post I haven't read the piece in fully yet, but there are problems with the article and potentially methodology which I'm unwilling to discuss at this point. Hopefully, the situation will become clearer in the next published issue. > tonight), there will be a follow-up comment from Mike Darwin and response > from Aschwin. Darwin's criticisms, if correct, only reinforce the core > message that chemopreservation is not currently a superior or even viable > alternative to cryopreservation. In order to qualify for an alternative treatment there needs to be a standard, validated protocol. Instead, we do not even have the information whether it would at all work. All we know that it warrants further research. I do not see who will be currently willing to pay for such research, apart from single interested individuals. I hope the Brain Preservation Foundation will validate at least structural preservation for large mammals within a decade, or so. The only way to correlate structure with function is by way of large scale simulations of previously functionally well-characterized biological system, which is in its infancy. > Eugen: The comments I've seen from you seemed to suggest general agreement > with Aschwin's piece. Is that not the case, or are you simply dubious about > certain specifics? I hope to be able to answer this when I'll see Aschwin's reply. > What bothers me is that some people (notably John Smart) are going about > strongly promoting the idea of chemopreservation as a superior option > today, when the best evidence says that is not the case. I see two major hairs in the soup: correlation of structure preservation with viability, which is impossible with crosslinked, heavy-metal stained brick and using the vascular system to fixate and stain, at least until you're stable enough that you could section (~cm^3) without screwing up the surface information, and further stain/fixate by diffusion. Will this be done, or can this even be done? No idea. From max at maxmore.com Tue Jan 15 05:31:57 2013 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Mon, 14 Jan 2013 22:31:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] cryonics vs. chemopreservation In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, anyone commenting on this topic *really *should read Aschwin's article. It is also published in the January issue of *Cryonics *magazine (which you will get sent free if you join Alcor as an Associate Member -- $10/month), and there will be a follow-up discussion in a late issue. If you think Aschwin has got something wrong or missed something, you can both comment here and write a response for *Cryonics*. Associate Membership info here (it's a good way to take an important step toward saving yourself): http://alcor.org/BecomeMember/associate.html There is no official Alcor position on chemopreservation, although Aschwin's article is the closest to one in that it represents my views and those board members with the greatest expertise in the area. If a feasible method of chemopreservation should be developed, Alcor would be well situated to offer it. Contrary to the completely unrealistic views of some chemo proponents, to have a chance of successfully preserving your brain, you would still need a sophisticated, well-organized response capability, just as Alcor has for standby, stabilization, and transport. We should soon be making available online the discussion of chemopreservation from the recent Alcor-40 conference with input from Ken Hayworth, Greg Fahy, Brian Wowk, Sebastian Seung, Aschwin de Wolf, and others. --Max On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 12:09 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:43 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > At any rate I'd still like to know what Alcor's official position on > > chemopreservation is. > > ### You might want to read Aschwin de Wolf's article on this: > > http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/chemopreservation.html > > 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 giulio at gmail.com Tue Jan 15 10:49:05 2013 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 11:49:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] cryonics vs. chemopreservation In-Reply-To: References: <20130115073250.GJ6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: Re "strongly promoting the idea of chemopreservation as a superior option today" - Max, I don't plan to die today! What Smart, Hayworth and others say, and I tend to agree, is that after the ongoing preliminary research is complete, brain preservation could _become_ a superior option, for the subset of cryonicists who prefer uploading to biological life (I belong to this subset). I think once chemopreservation is established as an alternative option, no matter whether superior or not (depends on the individual perspective), Alcor and the CI should offer it in parallel with cryo. On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 9:31 AM, Max More wrote: > No one is saying to take it as gospel, but it's a good analysis of the > issues. Better than anything to date. As I said (here or in another post > tonight), there will be a follow-up comment from Mike Darwin and response > from Aschwin. Darwin's criticisms, if correct, only reinforce the core > message that chemopreservation is not currently a superior or even viable > alternative to cryopreservation. > > Eugen: The comments I've seen from you seemed to suggest general agreement > with Aschwin's piece. Is that not the case, or are you simply dubious about > certain specifics? > > What bothers me is that some people (notably John Smart) are going about > strongly promoting the idea of chemopreservation as a superior option today, > when the best evidence says that is not the case. > > --Max > > > On Tue, Jan 15, 2013 at 12:32 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> >> On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 02:09:45PM -0500, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >> > On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 1:43 PM, John Clark >> > wrote: >> > >> > > At any rate I'd still like to know what Alcor's official position on >> > > chemopreservation is. >> > >> > ### You might want to read Aschwin de Wolf's article on this: >> > >> > http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/chemopreservation.html >> >> I wouldn't take that article as gospel yet. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From giulio at gmail.com Tue Jan 15 15:03:39 2013 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 16:03:39 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The best tribute to Aaron Swartz Message-ID: If you are a scientist, you can pay the best and most effective tribute to the memory of Aaron Swartz , by sharing PDFs of your published work on pdftribute.net via the hashtag #pdftribute on Twitter. I also suggest to boycott the pay-walled journals of the science mafia and publish on arXiv , or one of the many excellent open access science journals like *PLoS * and *eLife *. Hit them in the wallet where it hurts, it is the only effective way to protest. *New Scientist * | Hundreds of researchers have been sharing PDFs of their work on Twitter as a tribute to Aaron Swartz, the internet freedom activist who committed suicide on Friday. Swartz was facing hacking charges from the US government after accessing the network of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and downloading nearly 5 million articles from the digital library JSTOR . Academics are now offering open-access versions of their work using the hashtag #pdftribute in memory of Swartz and building a collection of papers at pdftribute.net. In a statement following his death, Swartz?s parents criticised the Massachusetts US attorney?s office for pursuing charges against their son, and MIT for failing to support him. [NOTE - see also *Time* | Aaron Swartz?s Suicide Prompts MIT Soul-Searching. ] Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the world wide web, tweeted his own tribute: ?Aaron dead. World wanderers, we have lost a wise elder. Hackers for right, we are one down. Parents all, we have lost a child. Let us weep.? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ilia.stambler at gmail.com Tue Jan 15 15:53:37 2013 From: ilia.stambler at gmail.com (Ilia Stambler) Date: Tue, 15 Jan 2013 17:53:37 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Humanity Plus election In-Reply-To: <00d701cdf26c$b12d7af0$138870d0$@natasha.cc> References: <005601cdf031$cd717140$685453c0$@natasha.cc> <00d701cdf26c$b12d7af0$138870d0$@natasha.cc> Message-ID: There still seems to be no announcement about this election either on hplus-talk at list.humanityplus.org or humanityplus-members at googlegroups.com . the last message I saw on hplus-talk was of January 4, entitled "AGI and the Global Brain". And yet people submit candidatures and discuss candidates. one wonders... On Mon, Jan 14, 2013 at 5:34 PM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > Hi all,**** > > ** ** > > I didn?t see this email until today. Sorry about the byke (bike?) > accident. Milan? I miss it, so it would be great to visit sometime in the > coming year.**** > > ** ** > > Bty, when the candidates send in their statements, etc. and we put up the > website, I will let you know who I personally think would be great for the > organization and its members. **** > > ** ** > > Best,**** > > Natasha**** > > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto: > extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On Behalf Of *Stefano Vaj > *Sent:* Saturday, January 12, 2013 3:06 PM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Humanity Plus election**** > > ** ** > > Dearest Natasha,**** > > On 11 January 2013 20:28, Natasha Vita-More wrote:*** > * > > What not run for the Board? There are two seats open!**** > > > You mean why? Next time perhaps, right now I am recovering from a > not-so-trivial byke accident, not to mention some increased professional > engagements... **** > > **** > > I will ivoice my personal views as a member, but not as an officer of > Humanity+. Anything you?d like to ask? J**** > > > Yup. I have not heard from Humanity Plus in a while. Am I still in good > standing? Did I forget to register for something? With regard to wta-vote, > or whatever it may be called these days, do we have as many votes as place > or just one? And... whom do you personally recommend to vote for amongst > existing candidates? :-) > **** > > There is no wta-talk email list. There is a new list called hplus-talk. > You can join it from the website. Here is a link directly to the sign-up > page: http://lists.list.humanityplus.org/mailman/listinfo/hplus-talk**** > > > I am going to check whether I am am already a subscriber or not, thank you. > > Any chance you have an opportunity to pass by Milan any time soon? > > Yours sincerely, **** > > > -- > Stefano Vaj **** > > _______________________________________________ > 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 avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 16 16:03:17 2013 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 08:03:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] italian byke accident In-Reply-To: References: <005301cdf1b4$41fd50a0$c5f7f1e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <1358352197.13691.YahooMailNeo@web160502.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> ? ________________________________ From: Stefano Vaj To: ExI chat list Sent: Monday, January 14, 2013 2:39 PM Subject: Re: [ExI] italian byke accident > >On 13 January 2013 19:22, BillK wrote: > >I well know that bikes are fun, (in nice weather anyway) >> >Alas, they are not so ice-friendly... :-) > Ouch but I am glad you are in one piece, Stefano. Hopefully you won't be out of comission as long as I was back in 2004. ? Stuart LaForge ?The future starts today, not tomorrow.?- Karol J?zef Wojtyla? From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jan 16 18:41:30 2013 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 13:41:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Chemopreservation: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly Message-ID: This is a response from a article by Aschwin de Wolf at: http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/chemopreservation.html > For example, the expensive and extremely toxic chemical osmium tetroxide > is routinely used for stabilization of lipids in preparation for electron > microscopy. > If something as dangerous to handle and expensive as osmium tetroxide were needed then that could be a show stopper for chemical fixation being a alternative to cryonics, but I don't see why it would be needed. Osmium tetroxide is primarily not a stabilizer but a stain, it works well as a contrast agent in electron microscopes because heavy metals like Osmium scatter lots of electrons. However how information is extracted from my 3 pounds of frozen or chemically fixed brain is not my problem it is the problem of beings who live in a age of advanced Nanotechnology. My only concern is that the information remains intact inside that 3 pounds of grey goo, I don't know exactly how it will be extracted but I doubt it will be by electron microscopes. > Unlike the cryobiologist, the chemical fixation researcher cannot > reverse fixation and test for viability. > I don't understand what is meant by that or what edge Cryonics has over fixation because of it. Viability just means it works, and so far neither Cryonics nor fixation has brought anybody back and I don't think anybody will until advanced nanotechnology is developed. It almost sounds like there is supposed to be some advantage in using the same atoms in the reawakened being as in the old one, but I can't imagine what that advantage could be. > The cryobiologist does not have to confine himself to this fate because > he can attempt to measure viability in the brain > Obviously during revival at every step you'd like to know if you're doing it right and are on the right track, but again I don't see why cryonics would be better at this than fixation. > or even the whole organism. > Preserving any part of the body with either method except for the brain seems completely pointless to me. > Let us assume, for the sake of the argument, that the chemopreservation > advocate has identified a number of fixatives (and other treatments) that > are sufficient for complete ultrastructural preservation of the brain. The > next question is going to be: how stable will chemopreservation be over > time? This is a very important point for the technical feasibility of > chemopreservation. > Yes that is a important point. With Cryonics, unless we're talking about millions of years and as long as things remain cold (but will it?), pretty much all the damage that is going to be done has been done by the time the brain reaches liquid nitrogen temperatures. And I'm not worried about damage caused during thawing because that won't be done with existing technology, assuming it's even thawed at all and it probably won't be; the information will probably be read out by disassembling the brain from the outside in while it remains in solid form. I don't know if chemical fixation would remain as stable over the centuries as freezing, my hunch is that cryonics has a small edge over fixation in this regard but I could be dead wrong, maybe it's a big edge. And I don't want to be dead. > It is not only necessary to demonstrate that all chemicals can be > introduced by perfusion fixation without perfusion artifacts > Both methods are imperfect so it is only necessary to demonstrate that fixation produces fewer artifacts than Cryonics or that the artifacts produced are easier to identify as artifacts to make it the superior technology. > In my opinion, the prospect of autolysis is much worse because when > biomolecules break up into their constitutive parts, and go into solution, > True, but if fixation is done correctly there won't be any fluid for things to move in. > there is a risk that essential parts of the brain will not be fixed, as a > result of inadequacies of the protocol, perfusion artifacts, or long term > degradation. It is at this point where classic cryopreservation really > shines. Even tissue that is not protected from ice formation as a > consequence of perfusion impairment will still be "fixed" through low > temperatures.[...] > That is another very good point. If the cryo-preservative doesn't reach a certain part of the brain things might not be hopeless because at least it still gets frozen so you still might be able to get information out of it if your technology is good enough, but if the chemical fixative doesn't reach part of the brain things are far far more serious. But the smaller the biological sample you're trying to infuse with cryo-preservative or chemical fixative the easier it is, so both methods might be improved if before any chemical was infused or any freezing done a dozen or so thin cuts were made to slice the brain into smaller pieces. The cuts could be made very thin indeed, 30 nanometers or about 100 atoms thick. Yes you would be destroying some tissue but if the technology is good enough to repair all the damage caused by freezing or chemical fixation then I don't think they'd have much trouble figuring out what is supposed to be in that very narrow gap. > [...] there is little hope of inferring the original structure of the > brain. > Yes, the important thing is that things stay put, or at least if they must move the flow should not be turbulent so you can figure out where the parts were before they moved. If things are turbulent then a small change in initial conditions will lead to a huge change in out come and you'll never figure out where things are supposed to go. I don't see why turbulence would occur in chemical fixation and fortunately (see below) it doesn't look like it would happen during the freezing of a brain either (I'm not interested in what happens during unfreezing, that's a problem for advanced nanotechnology, I just want to be sure the information is still inside that frozen lump of tissue). That's why I think Cryonics has a pretty good chance of working at least from a technical viewpoint, whether the brain will actually remain at liquid nitrogen temperatures until the age of nanotechnology and whether anybody will think we're worth the bother of reviving is a entirely different question. Fluid flow stops being smoothly Laminar and starts to become chaotically turbulent when a system has a Reynolds number between 2300 and 4000, although you might get some non chaotic vortices if it is bigger than 30. We can find the approximate Reynolds number by using the formula LDV/N. L is the characteristic size we're interested in, we're interested in cells so L is about 10^-6 meter. D is the density of water, 10^3 kilograms/cubic meter. V is the velocity of the flow, during freezing it's probably less than 10^-3 meters per second but let's be conservative, I'll give you 3 orders of magnitude and call V 1 meter per second. N is the viscosity of water, at room temperature N is 0.001 newton-second/meter^2, it would be less than that when things get cold and even less when water is mixed with glycerol as it is in cryonics but let's be conservative again and ignore those factors. If you plug these numbers into the formula you get a Reynolds number of about 1. 1 is a lot less than 2300 so it looks like any mixing caused by freezing would probably be laminar not turbulent, so you can still deduce the position where things are supposed to be. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Wed Jan 16 21:40:11 2013 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 22:40:11 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Chemopreservation: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130116214011.GQ6172@leitl.org> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:41:30PM -0500, John Clark wrote: > This is a response from a article by Aschwin de Wolf at: > http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/chemopreservation.html I wouldn't put you within a 10 meter pole of a patient, John. People like you kill people. From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Jan 17 01:56:52 2013 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 16 Jan 2013 20:56:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Chemopreservation: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly In-Reply-To: <20130116214011.GQ6172@leitl.org> References: <20130116214011.GQ6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 4:40 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 01:41:30PM -0500, John Clark wrote: >> This is a response from a article by Aschwin de Wolf at: >> http://www.alcor.org/Library/html/chemopreservation.html > > I wouldn't put you within a 10 meter pole of a patient, John. > People like you kill people. A patient who is a 10 meter Pole would be quite a giant (regardless of nationality) From eugen at leitl.org Thu Jan 17 10:14:07 2013 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:14:07 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Chemopreservation: The Good, the Bad and the Ugly In-Reply-To: References: <20130116214011.GQ6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20130117101407.GK6172@leitl.org> On Wed, Jan 16, 2013 at 08:56:52PM -0500, Mike Dougherty wrote: > A patient who is a 10 meter Pole would be quite a giant (regardless of > nationality) I hate to think of an ice bath to house a 10 m giant. It's already a quarter of a ton for a generic human primate. From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jan 17 18:45:17 2013 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:45:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:56 AM, BillK wrote: > Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 Even better: It > could do so at the same cost as fossil fuels > In just 17 years? Hmm, let's see what it would take to run a 100 horsepower motor 24 hours a day, that's about what a small compact car would have. 100 hp is equal to 75000 watts and solar cells produce about 10 watts per square foot at peak solar around noon. But we want to run that motor continuously so obviously we'll need some sort of energy storage device that will probably cost more than the solar cells themselves, and we'll need at least 4 times as many solar cells as we'd need at peak, a 300,000 watt system might do, that's 30,000 square feet of solar cells or a solid square with a 173 foot edge. I didn't factor in clouds, I figured you'd want to build it in the desert with few clouds and cheap land (I didn't factor in transmission costs either). But of course if you build it there environmentalists will scream bloody murder because the habitat of some obscure desert lizard would be endangered and all those very dark solar cells would be contributing to global warming. Incidentally at the latest count there are 1,000,000,000 working cars on this planet. I didn't try to calculate how many solar cells you'd need to run a blast furnace at a steel mill, or a 747. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Jan 17 19:12:57 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 11:12:57 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <018e01cdf4e6$a9e82070$fdb86150$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Thursday, January 17, 2013 10:45 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 On Sat, Dec 15, 2012 at 4:56 AM, BillK wrote: > Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 Even better: It could do so at the same cost as fossil fuels In just 17 years? Hmm, let's see what it would take to run a 100 horsepower motor 24 hours a day, that's about what a small compact car would have. 100 hp is equal to 75000 watts and solar cells produce about 10 watts per square foot at peak solar around noon. John K Clark John 100 hp is a typical peak power rating for our Detroits, but a really important point here is that cars don't use that kind of power continually. They use a lot of that when accelerating hard, but a typical power use for a typical Detroit is in the 25 to 30 hp range, but even that has some assumptions. If we accept cars that don't accelerate as hard and don't have the absurd top speeds that we so dearly love (hey, I am not pointing any fingers, I too love to tear around like my ass is on fire) then we don't need such high power ratings. If we accept lower acceleration and lower top speeds, we can have far lighter cars, which aren't safe at the higher speeds anyway. This encourages us to use our electronic transportation more. That being said, the venerable V8, of which I own three and love them all, helps us in a way: these thirsty beasts give us something to give up should the need arise. It is analogous to the sincere believer with no vices, who must grudgingly take up some disgusting habit at the end of Lent, so that she will have something to give up next time Lent rolls around. We have our V8s. Maintaining those gives us plenty of room to reduce our energy consumption, plenty, while still being able to maintain what we really like the most. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Jan 17 18:58:36 2013 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 13:58:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:45 PM, John Clark wrote: > Hmm, let's see what it would take to run a 100 horsepower motor 24 hours a > day, that's about what a small compact car would have. 1. Nobody runs their car 24 hours per day. 2. Nobody runs the engine in their car at full power for more than a few minutes per day. Cruising at highway speeds requires about 20 HP. -Dave From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Jan 18 02:09:26 2013 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 21:09:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:45 PM, John Clark wrote: > 4 times as many solar cells as we'd need at peak, a 300,000 watt system > might do, that's 30,000 square feet of solar cells or a solid square with a > 173 foot edge. I didn't factor in clouds, I figured you'd want to build it ... > Incidentally at the latest count there are 1,000,000,000 working cars on > this planet. I didn't try to calculate how many solar cells you'd need to > run a blast furnace at a steel mill, or a 747. I want to see the blueprint for a solar-powered 747. I imagine it has a sleek black surface built of solar panels and an impressive array of carbon nanotubes harnessing about half-a-million pigeons... ... more enginerring? From spike66 at att.net Fri Jan 18 02:43:15 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 17 Jan 2013 18:43:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00a401cdf525$91427860$b3c76920$@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 ... ... >> Incidentally at the latest count there are 1,000,000,000 working cars > on this planet. I didn't try to calculate how many solar cells you'd > need to run a blast furnace at a steel mill, or a 747. >...I want to see the blueprint for a solar-powered 747. I imagine it has a sleek black surface built of solar panels and an impressive array of carbon nanotubes harnessing about half-a-million pigeons... >... more enginerring? _______________________________________________ No pigeons necessary, the solar cells to run the 747 are not carried aloft. A few hectares of solar panels in the desert powers a coal to kerosene plant, fill er up and off you go. I can imagine solar powered coal to liquids will be an important process in the future because it mostly solves the problem of moving the power to the people, right on. spike From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jan 18 06:08:32 2013 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 01:08:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > > >1. Nobody runs their car 24 hours per day. > 2. Nobody runs the engine in their car at full power for more than a > few minutes per day. Cruising at highway speeds requires about 20 HP. > One gallon of gasoline produces 34.7 KWH. All the cars on Earth consume 30,000,000 gallons of gasoline per hour. So you need 1,040,000,000,000 watts to run the world's cars. As I said solar cells produce about 10 watts per square foot but only at noon on a cloudless day, so you'd need a installation that could produce at least 4 times that at peak or 4,160,000,000,000 watts or 416,000,000,000 square feet of solar cells and that is a square 122 miles on edge. I haven't factored in the inefficiency caused by the massive and very expensive energy storage and distribution system that would be just as important and probably more complex and costly than the solar cells themselves. And forget about all the other things that need to run on energy, all that is just to run cars. 99.9%? Seems like a lot to hope for in just 17 years. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jan 18 10:10:01 2013 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:10:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 01:08:32AM -0500, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:58 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > > > > > >1. Nobody runs their car 24 hours per day. > > 2. Nobody runs the engine in their car at full power for more than a > > few minutes per day. Cruising at highway speeds requires about 20 HP. > > John seems unable to post anything which is remotely right. > One gallon of gasoline produces 34.7 KWH. All the cars on Earth consume > 30,000,000 gallons of gasoline per hour. So you need 1,040,000,000,000 ICEs have a street efficiency of rougly 23%. Current EVs have a combined fuel economy of e.g. 28 kWhr/100 miles. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_car > watts to run the world's cars. As I said solar cells produce about 10 watts How many whales would it take to run them on whale oil, John? > per square foot but only at noon on a cloudless day, so you'd need a > installation that could produce at least 4 times that at peak or > 4,160,000,000,000 watts or 416,000,000,000 square feet of solar cells and Why so many zeroes? I know you can use scientific notation, John. > that is a square 122 miles on edge. I haven't factored in the inefficiency > caused by the massive and very expensive energy storage and distribution Gee, you mean a car port with PVs is massive and expensive "storage and distribution"? If I didn't know for sure you can think, I would suspect you're pushing an agenda. It's not that they make any more dead dinos, you know. Forget ancient sunlight bottled at terrible efficiency and extracted at very high cost, get the real thing straight from the tap. > system that would be just as important and probably more complex and costly > than the solar cells themselves. > > And forget about all the other things that need to run on energy, all that > is just to run cars. 99.9%? Seems like a lot to hope for in just 17 years. Strangely enough, I agree! We need 3 TWp deployment rate annually for the next 40 years, while we're currently at 30 GWp only. That's a factor of 100 short of what we need. From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jan 18 11:49:30 2013 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:49:30 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20130118114930.GF6172@leitl.org> On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 09:09:26PM -0500, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 1:45 PM, John Clark wrote: > > 4 times as many solar cells as we'd need at peak, a 300,000 watt system > > might do, that's 30,000 square feet of solar cells or a solid square with a > > 173 foot edge. I didn't factor in clouds, I figured you'd want to build it > ... > > Incidentally at the latest count there are 1,000,000,000 working cars on > > this planet. I didn't try to calculate how many solar cells you'd need to > > run a blast furnace at a steel mill, or a 747. > > I want to see the blueprint for a solar-powered 747. I imagine it has You've already seen it. All current 747s are solar powered. It's just really old, really tired sunlight, converted at an abysmal efficiency and packed in dirty drek underground, so we've burned through worth a gigayear of it within a mere century. So as that there's not much more where that came from, gee, it's not as you've got any other options. At all. So man up, and learn to use current-day solar. You don't have all that much time left. They say who that laughs last, laughs best. So I hope that you can still laugh, since it indicates that you've made the switch while it was still possible. I can tell you at a billion or two of people won't be laughing all that much, when they starve. All thanks to allthe jokers who's been laughing at renewable since 1970s. Haha! That's a reall killer of a joke, ahahahahahah. > a sleek black surface built of solar panels and an impressive array of > carbon nanotubes harnessing about half-a-million pigeons... > > ... more enginerring? From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jan 18 11:32:29 2013 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:32:29 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Strangely enough, I agree! We need 3 TWp deployment rate annually for the > next 40 years, while we're currently at 30 GWp only. That's a factor of > 100 short of what we need. > The article is attempting to model running the US grid system mainly from renewable power sources. I believe the US grid capacity is only about 1TW at present. The study sheds light on what an electric system might look like with heavy reliance on renewable energy sources. Wind speeds and sun exposure vary with weather and seasons, requiring ways to improve reliability. In this study, reliability was achieved by: expanding the geographic area of renewable generation, using diverse sources, employing storage systems, and for the last few percent of the time, burning fossil fuels as a backup. The study isn't trying to redesign the whole world. It is trying to show that by increasing the use of renewable energy over the next 17 years it is feasible to run the US grid mostly from wind and sun. As Spike points out, cars will become more economical, especially when driven by Google. BillK From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jan 18 12:35:49 2013 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 13:35:49 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 11:32:29AM +0000, BillK wrote: > The article is attempting to model running the US grid system mainly > from renewable power sources. That is a small subset of the problem. The world runs at 16 TW total, and expected to need 30 TW by 2050. > I believe the US grid capacity is only about 1TW at present. The German energy grid already is at 21.9% renewable, 135 TWh total. Wind was 45 TWh, biomass 41 TWh, photovoltaics 28.5 TWh and hydro 20.5 TWh. > The study sheds light on what an electric system might look like with > heavy reliance on renewable energy sources. Wind speeds and sun > exposure vary with weather and seasons, requiring ways to improve > reliability. In this study, reliability was achieved by: expanding the > geographic area of renewable generation, using diverse sources, > employing storage systems, and for the last few percent of the time, You only need massive storage at roughly 80%. You need effectively no storage for 20%. > burning fossil fuels as a backup. > > The study isn't trying to redesign the whole world. It is trying to > show that by increasing the use of renewable energy over the next 17 > years it is feasible to run the US grid mostly from wind and sun. As US, 99% and 17 years is terribly optimistics, even if it would be funded, which it will not. I see no reason why Germany won't be at 80+% by 2050. > Spike points out, cars will become more economical, especially when Cars don't enter the equation. They're almost irrelevant in terms of total energy. > driven by Google. From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jan 18 12:08:27 2013 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:08:27 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Free Kindle books Message-ID: There are many sites where you can get free books for download. Amazon provides thousands of free books for Kindles but they can be difficult to find. This new site has indexed them for you. Note. Sometimes Amazon reprices before their index gets updated, so sometimes you may find a price attached to a book that used to be free. BillK From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Jan 18 13:52:43 2013 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 08:52:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <20130118114930.GF6172@leitl.org> References: <20130118114930.GF6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 6:49 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > On Thu, Jan 17, 2013 at 09:09:26PM -0500, Mike Dougherty wrote: >> I want to see the blueprint for a solar-powered 747. I imagine it has > > You've already seen it. All current 747s are solar powered. > > It's just really old, really tired sunlight, converted at > an abysmal efficiency and packed in dirty drek underground, > so we've burned through worth a gigayear of it within a > mere century. Flippant remark meant to make you smile at the thought of an absurdity that I expected to have no response and it gets two. When I try to make a (semi-)serious point I wonder if the message got delivered. >From your logic above you'd claim that people are solar powered whenever they eat plants. Really? I'm all for a specious rant now and again, but "everything is really solar powered" is a bit much. From spike66 at att.net Fri Jan 18 15:26:57 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 07:26:57 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: <003f01cdf590$41bf3c40$c53db4c0$@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 study isn't trying to redesign the whole world. It is trying to show that by increasing the use of renewable energy over the next 17 years it is feasible to run the US grid mostly from wind and sun. As Spike points out, cars will become more economical, especially when driven by Google...BillK _______________________________________________ Oy, I fear posting on this topic because you patient lads must be getting so tired of hearing my blathering. Please, go out in your driveway and gaze at your Detroit. Really examine the thing, then look at it the way an aerospace engineer looks at a problem, by asking what is the mission exactly, and what can we give up. What is hanging on this device that we can do without? Turns out the answer is plenty. What paradigms are built into this device which have become tradition, but now we have better ways? My answers: we assumed we need to go 100 mph or higher. Absurd, we don't. We assumed we need to survive high speed collisions. We don't need that capability if the Detroit doesn't go to high speeds, and the road has far fewer high speed vehicles. We get a lot of safety nearly free if we assume a lot of high techy airbag technology which has come along in the past 20 yrs. We assume we need to accelerate at nearly a G because teenagers used to use cars as toys at the local dragstrip, not that *I* would *ever* do such a thing you understand. When I see calcs that assume fuel usage as we have always done then calculate the area of solar panels needed to replace the dino-fuel, it immediately becomes clear they are neglecting two important factors: we can build cars way more efficient than they are, and there will be a lot more cars in the next couple decades. Interesting trend: China is a country which is coming up fast. They are having all the classic problems now: their big cities are choking on auto exhaust. Unlike western nations, the Chinese government has the authority to dictate to its gigaprole exactly how things will be. So it should be interesting to see how they deal with the problems. I can imagine the leaders doing all the calculations, then realizing they need to arrange for all those factories to produce some super lightweight Lion battery electrics, that top out at about 80 kph (that will get you there, eventually) have a peak acceleration of about 0.25G (patience Grahss Hoppah) and weigh about 400 kg. Those buggies would have eager markets all over the world. India will want them, Europe will want them. Americans will hate them, but they are coming anyway. Markets will demand them eventually. There is a legal way our current governments can tilt the playing field to favor these devices: lower speed limits. Last thought: if we had these little electric buggies, it will really boost the notion of having them computer driven. They will be so frustrating to drive, owners will be eager to hand over that onerous task. Right now our Detroits are fun to drive. The electrics I envision will not be fun. However they will use only about 20 to 30 percent the energy full cycle, making them rechargeable with rooftop solar panels, assuming you don't drive very far and it isn't a particularly dense housing where you live. We really can do this. Not in 17 years, not 99%, but I can envision 80% renewable in 30 years. Fracking will help build a bridge to the future as ground based solar and wind power ramp up. We need to get on it, forthwith. spike From spike66 at att.net Fri Jan 18 15:40:18 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 07:40:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl >... >>... Spike points out, cars will become more economical, especially when >...Cars don't enter the equation. They're almost irrelevant in terms of total energy. Disagree. Reasoning: cars are so close to our everyday experience, they have an important collective psychological impact on society. If we are comfortable we get conservative. If anything messes with our transportation experience, we are immediately uncomfortable, and we drive change. About twenty years ago there was a series of very low rainfall years. California put all these conservation measures in place, but of all oddball things, one of the measures that had the most impact was that restaurants were asked to refrain from bringing the customers a glass of water unless the prole specifically asked for it. The restaurants gladly complied: it saved them money and time. It had no measurable impact on water usage, but it did penetrate collective thinking, because it made us a little thirstier when dining out, which focused attention on something we wouldn't have given a second thought: that the reservoirs were getting dangerously low. My notion is that if our Detroits go SLOWER (evolution-forbid) it draws attention to that which is easy to ignore so long as we have a local petrol station providing as much octane as we wish to purchase. Like the missing water glasses at the restaurant, a little bit of savings has a leveraging effect on our collective thinking. spike From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jan 18 16:06:06 2013 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 11:06:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 5:10 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > John seems unable to post anything which is remotely right. > Hey Eugen, what the hell happened to you? I've known you for over 10 years and you never used to be crazy, but then about 6 months ago something changed and you became nuttier than a fruitcake, you get completely hysterical and incoherent anytime the word "energy" is mentioned, and I don't even want to discuss what happens if anyone dares to utter the dreaded word "nuclear". And apparently you couldn't take time off from ranting and hurling personal insults to say exactly what I had gotten so wrong in my post that it was not even remotely right. > ICEs have a street efficiency of rougly 23%. Current EVs have a combined > fuel economy of e.g. 28 kWhr/100 miles. > That's nice. So exactly what had I gotten so wrong in my post that it was not even remotely right? > How many whales would it take to run them on whale oil, John? > I don't know Eugen. So exactly what had I gotten so wrong in my post that it was not even remotely right? > Why so many zeroes? I know you can use scientific notation, John. > Sorry you don't like zeros. So exactly what had I gotten so wrong in my post that it was not even remotely right? > If I didn't know for sure you can think, I would suspect you're pushing > an agenda. > I am pushing a agenda, dastardly international oil cartels and other worldwide agencies of evil intent on world domination are paying me thirteen pieces of silver to cause dissension and discord in enlightened groups like environmentalists and solar energy apostles who only wish to cause good; and I do this not just for the money but because being a bad guy is my thing. Or maybe my agenda is just respect for logic. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From eugen at leitl.org Fri Jan 18 17:27:27 2013 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 18:27:27 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: <20130118114930.GF6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: <20130118172727.GQ6172@leitl.org> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 08:52:43AM -0500, Mike Dougherty wrote: > From your logic above you'd claim that people are solar powered > whenever they eat plants. Really? I'm all for a specious rant now > and again, but "everything is really solar powered" is a bit much. Stellar processes are the only source of energy on this planet, with the exception of fusion, and there's been only about a a second of worth of sunlight in latter's case. And it doesn't seem like there will be any anytime soon. So whenever you're using a derived, secondary source of energy, especially one that is limited (because it's a nonrenewable resource, or is fundamentally limited, as biofuel due to HANPP) it always make sense to consider tapping the primary. Because we know it's good for gigayears, and it's 10^5 in excess of what we need right now, even just considered terrestrial flux. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Jan 18 20:14:43 2013 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 15:14:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <20130118172727.GQ6172@leitl.org> References: <20130118114930.GF6172@leitl.org> <20130118172727.GQ6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > > So whenever you're using a derived, secondary source of energy, > especially one that is limited (because it's a nonrenewable resource, or > is fundamentally limited, as biofuel due to HANPP) it always > make sense to consider tapping the primary. ### No, not always. Only if the secondary is close to running out or if the primary becomes cheaper (in a very general sense of being more economically efficient). I am reasonably certain that we *could* use solar and wind to supply 99.9% of all power by 2030, and we *could* hop on one leg instead of walking on two but, why? Rafal From sparge at gmail.com Fri Jan 18 20:19:06 2013 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 15:19:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: <20130118114930.GF6172@leitl.org> <20130118172727.GQ6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > >> So whenever you're using a derived, secondary source of energy, >> especially one that is limited (because it's a nonrenewable resource, or >> is fundamentally limited, as biofuel due to HANPP) it always >> make sense to consider tapping the primary. > > ### No, not always. Only if the secondary is close to running out or > if the primary becomes cheaper (in a very general sense of being more > economically efficient). I am reasonably certain that we *could* use > solar and wind to supply 99.9% of all power by 2030, and we *could* > hop on one leg instead of walking on two but, why? I think the key word in Eugen's quote is "consider". -Dave From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jan 18 17:55:26 2013 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 12:55:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <20130118172727.GQ6172@leitl.org> References: <20130118114930.GF6172@leitl.org> <20130118172727.GQ6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: > Stellar processes are the only source of energy on this planet, with the > exception of fusion, > Ultimately the only source of energy on this planet is nuclear and there are no exceptions. The sun runs on nuclear fusion and even nuclear fission comes from suns even if it's not our particular sun but stars at least 8 times larger than our star that went supernova billions of years ago and built up the heavy metals including Uranium and Thorium in a endothermic process from iron. > > So whenever you're using a derived, secondary source of energy, > especially one that is limited [...] On Earth we'll run out of things to fission about the same time the sun will run out of things to fuse. Oh dear, now I've gone and done it, I've mentioned the forbidden "N" word, so now we can expect a dissertation from Eugen about my evil nature and my general failure as a human being. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Jan 19 00:46:09 2013 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 19:46:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: <20130118114930.GF6172@leitl.org> <20130118172727.GQ6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:55 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Earth we'll run out of things to fission about the same time the sun will > run out of things to fuse. > > Oh dear, now I've gone and done it, I've mentioned the forbidden "N" word, > so now we can expect a dissertation from Eugen about my evil nature and my > general failure as a human being. I can't speak to the nature of your human being, but as a Troll you've achieved a level of distinction comparable to that of a well-aged scotch. Keep up the good work. :) From spike66 at att.net Sat Jan 19 05:48:01 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 18 Jan 2013 21:48:01 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> Message-ID: <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of spike >...My notion is that if our Detroits go SLOWER (evolution-forbid) it draws attention to that which is easy to ignore ... spike _______________________________________________ I may have found a problem in my own line of reasoning. So what if things work out exactly as I envision? What if... society recognizes the Red Queen effect in the remaining productive oil wells and fracking, where we need to run faster and faster just to stay where we are, and so we start to get serious about alternatives: we build nukes, we install ground-based solar, we build enormous wind farms, we manage to not get into wars over dwindling fossil fuels, we do all things needed to transition to renewables, in a period of about 30 years. OK, best case, what if we manage to do that? Then we have a generation which is pouring heart and soul into just trying to equal what we always took for granted. We had these grand visions of orbiting space stations and moon colonies and all that stuff that never came to pass, but the now generation would not have the luxury of grand visions. It would have only small visions of struggling to break even. If they are ambitious and successful, their world will be a lot like their grandfather's world, only not as good in some important ways. The energy is scarcer, they need to think carefully about how they live their lives. They don't really have the option of the wild careless stuff we used to do, like drag racing our Detroits and all the wild dissipations our generation enjoyed. Of course some things will be crazy better: their virtual worlds and such, their computer gaming. My vision for the future is coping with gradually tightening energy sources and doing cool stuff anyway, replacing fossil fuels with renewables and such, but there might be a serious flaw in that line of reasoning. What if the now generation has only small visions to dream, only break-even as a goal? Will that work? Will they take up the burden of struggling to maintain what we were just given? spike From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jan 19 05:07:12 2013 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 00:07:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: <20130118114930.GF6172@leitl.org> <20130118172727.GQ6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > I can't speak to the nature of your human being, but as a Troll you've > achieved a level of distinction comparable to that of a well-aged scotch. > Mr. Dougherty first called me a Troll on September 28 2006, to which I replied: "I'm flattered. As I've been on this list for over a decade so you must think I deserve to be in the Guinness Book of world records as the longest living troll in internet history." But perhaps the confusion is one of language, so In Mr. Dougherty's lexicon I'd really like to know one thing, what is a Troll? And what is it that makes me a Troll but Mr. Dougherty not a Troll? John K Clark > :) > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Sat Jan 19 13:12:58 2013 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben Zaiboc) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 05:12:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <1358601178.17753.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> "spike" confessed: > I may have found a problem in my own line of reasoning. > > So what if things work out exactly as I envision?? ... > My vision for the future is coping with gradually tightening > energy sources > and doing cool stuff anyway, replacing fossil fuels with > renewables and > such, but there might be a serious flaw in that line of > reasoning.? What if > the now generation has only small visions to dream, only > break-even as a > goal?? Will that work?? Will they take up the > burden of struggling to > maintain what we were just given? Exactly, Spike. This is my greatest fear (well, this and rabid chihuahuas), that we will learn to make do with less, and less, and less, all the way down to the freezing in the dark scenario. We need expansive, /extropian/ thinking, not this defeatist, depressing 'sustainability' attitude. There is no such thing as sustainability, we either expand or contract, win or lose, live or die. All the more depressing when you realise that there is such a huge abundance of energy and material just floating about, doing nothing, begging to be used, yet most people seem to want to turn their back on it and slump into a slow extinction. Ben Zaiboc From anders at aleph.se Sat Jan 19 13:56:27 2013 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 13:56:27 +0000 Subject: [ExI] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> Message-ID: <50FAA60B.70702@aleph.se> On 19/01/2013 05:48, spike wrote: > My vision for the future is coping with gradually tightening energy > sources and doing cool stuff anyway, replacing fossil fuels with > renewables and such, but there might be a serious flaw in that line of > reasoning. What if the now generation has only small visions to dream, > only break-even as a goal? Will that work? Will they take up the > burden of struggling to maintain what we were just given? I think this is an important concern. Guarding and maintaining our infrastructure of life is not the only vital goal: instilling ambition and dynamical optimism in the next generation is perhaps even more important. At the risk of showing old man credentials, I think there is cause for concern given the widespread tendencies to overprotect children, giving them sometimes excessive support but little criticism, and placing them in situations where they cannot fail but there are no incentives to do anything different. One problem with traditional green thinking has been that it encourages a backward-looking conservative mindset where the order of nature must be preserved (although the order of society can and maybe should be overthrown); it can easily synergise with other forms of risk aversion, whether personal, economical or social. I think one good sign is the growth of the Maker movement: people taking charge over their material objects and learning to make or change things, write their own software and so on. That is an important mindset and something every parent should encourage in their kids (no matter what the danger is to their material possessions). But there might also be a need to encourage big thinking, to get people to realize that we do have the power to change the world by inventing new things that change the rules. 3D printers, home biohacking and being able to code is neat, but you should aim at changing manufacturing, invent new ways of coordinating people, or combine them with other things to make something totally unthinkable that forever change the world. Any other ideas of how to instil grand ambition in people? Force them to read a bit of Rand, Nietzsche or von Braun? -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University From painlord2k at libero.it Sat Jan 19 14:27:33 2013 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 15:27:33 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: <20130118114930.GF6172@leitl.org> <20130118172727.GQ6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: <50FAAD55.1080701@libero.it> Il 18/01/2013 21:19, Dave Sill ha scritto: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: >> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 12:27 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> >>> So whenever you're using a derived, secondary source of energy, >>> especially one that is limited (because it's a nonrenewable resource, or >>> is fundamentally limited, as biofuel due to HANPP) it always >>> make sense to consider tapping the primary. >> >> ### No, not always. Only if the secondary is close to running out or >> if the primary becomes cheaper (in a very general sense of being more >> economically efficient). I am reasonably certain that we *could* use >> solar and wind to supply 99.9% of all power by 2030, and we *could* >> hop on one leg instead of walking on two but, why? > > I think the key word in Eugen's quote is "consider". How considerate is binding or cutting off one's leg to jump around just using the other one? To save energy? To consume less food? In a world of one legged beings, two legged are kings. Mirco From spike66 at att.net Sat Jan 19 14:46:15 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 06:46:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <1358601178.17753.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1358601178.17753.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <009401cdf653$bbb8c7a0$332a56e0$@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 ... >>... My vision for the future is coping with gradually tightening energy > sources and doing cool stuff anyway, replacing fossil fuels with > renewables and such... spike Exactly, Spike. This is my greatest fear (well, this and rabid chihuahuas), that we will learn to make do with less, and less, and less, all the way down to the freezing in the dark scenario. We need expansive, /extropian/ thinking, not this defeatist, depressing 'sustainability' attitude. There is no such thing as sustainability, we either expand or contract, win or lose, live or die...Ben Zaiboc _______________________________________________ Ben it is part of extropian thinking to look at what happens if there is no singularity and nuclear fusion never does work out for us. I have no doubt we will build new nuclear plants, and some space based solar might eventually happen if the Chinese and Indians take it up with vigor. But it might be that these things will not come to pass. You may be right that the most common future scenarios being promoted today, gradual conversion to all-sustainable energy, are not reasonable scenarios at all. Humanity may not accept it. It will be one or more of our miracle energy sources, or all-out destruction, with no alternatives. spike From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jan 19 13:50:55 2013 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 13:50:55 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <1358601178.17753.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1358601178.17753.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 1:12 PM, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > This is my greatest fear (well, this and rabid chihuahuas), that we will learn to make do with less, > and less, and less, all the way down to the freezing in the dark scenario. We need expansive, > /extropian/ thinking, not this defeatist, depressing 'sustainability' attitude. > There is no such thing as sustainability, we either expand or contract, win or lose, live or die. > > All the more depressing when you realise that there is such a huge abundance of energy and > material just floating about, doing nothing, begging to be used, yet most people seem to want > to turn their back on it and slump into a slow extinction. > That huge abundance of energy has been ignored because humanity was given free energy, gushing out of the ground. Naturally we use the easy stuff first. Oil has driven the last 100 years of 'progress'. Now we have created a civilisation based on oil, which is becoming harder and more expensive to obtain. So we have to change and seek out the more difficult sources of energy. If we can get unlimited energy, e.g. fusion power, solar power satellites, etc. then that can be used to create oil and maintain our current way of life. If we can get only a more restricted source of energy, e.g. wind power, solar panels, wave power, etc. then life support takes precedence over creating oil. (Although you might be surprised how much oil goes into creating and delivering our food supplies). Predicting the future depends on the sequence of events. We are unlikely to be presented with a menu of, say, five energy options to be developed all at once. It is more likely that an emergency situation will mean our remaining resources will be concentrated on delivering one new power source. And the other options discarded for another 100 years. If we choose wrong, then the worst fears of 'the sky is falling' people could be realised. BillK From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Jan 19 17:13:29 2013 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:13:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: <20130118114930.GF6172@leitl.org> <20130118172727.GQ6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 12:07 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 7:46 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > >> > I can't speak to the nature of your human being, but as a Troll you've >> > achieved a level of distinction comparable to that of a well-aged scotch. > > > Mr. Dougherty first called me a Troll on September 28 2006, to which I > replied: > > "I'm flattered. As I've been on this list for over a decade so you must > think > I deserve to be in the Guinness Book of world records as the longest living > troll in internet history." > > But perhaps the confusion is one of language, so In Mr. Dougherty's lexicon > I'd really like to know one thing, what is a Troll? And what is it that > makes me a Troll but Mr. Dougherty not a Troll? Though [any-] one could certainly follow a link to the wikipedia reference: Troll "... is someone who posts inflammatory,[1] extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as a forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response[2] or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion" I meant it in the sense of posting inflammatory message ... with the intent of provoking readers. While there are certainly negative connotations to disrupting discussion, I have enjoyed the bold tone of your disruption to the status quo. There seems to be an etiquette to many done-to-death conversations that are disrupted by [what I read] as eschewing the jargon of this nerd clique and you say real things the way I imagine real people would. And since you ask so plainly, I have to admit I may as well call myself a Troll here as well. I have no engineering credentials. I have no doctoral thesis. I really can't even say I feel particularly passionate about the hot-buttons I've observed all these years. (did I really call you Troll in 2006? geez, hasn't seemed that long) Yet I continue to hang around with an occasional quip or remark. Mostly what I post is nonsense. In that respect, it is a troll. I don't know enough to make the defensible cage-rattling commentary that you post, but I do enjoy the sometimes inevitable eruption it causes. Sometimes it's just snark, but I get that too. So do let me publicly apologize for the negative connotation I've applied in your direction. I had expected the "distinction of a well-aged scotch" would have indicated respect and appreciation for elevating the art to an exceptional level. btw, Thanks for allowing me the option to explain. Perhaps it would be better to simply remove the term from my "lexicon." :) From giulio at gmail.com Sat Jan 19 17:48:10 2013 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 18:48:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: <50FAA60B.70702@aleph.se> References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> <50FAA60B.70702@aleph.se> Message-ID: Anders, I totally agree. Over-protecting children is one of the worse things that we can do to them, because it may turn them in persons afraid of their own shadow and unable to cope with life. Fortunately, most children are smarter than us and find ways to work around our over-protection for their own good. If a twelve years old really wants to watch porn on the net, (s)he will find a way to do so regardless of any "parental protection" is installed. If (s)he wants to try sex or drugs, (s)he will do so. On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:56 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 19/01/2013 05:48, spike wrote: >> >> My vision for the future is coping with gradually tightening energy >> sources and doing cool stuff anyway, replacing fossil fuels with renewables >> and such, but there might be a serious flaw in that line of reasoning. What >> if the now generation has only small visions to dream, only break-even as a >> goal? Will that work? Will they take up the burden of struggling to maintain >> what we were just given? > > > I think this is an important concern. Guarding and maintaining our > infrastructure of life is not the only vital goal: instilling ambition and > dynamical optimism in the next generation is perhaps even more important. > > At the risk of showing old man credentials, I think there is cause for > concern given the widespread tendencies to overprotect children, giving them > sometimes excessive support but little criticism, and placing them in > situations where they cannot fail but there are no incentives to do anything > different. One problem with traditional green thinking has been that it > encourages a backward-looking conservative mindset where the order of nature > must be preserved (although the order of society can and maybe should be > overthrown); it can easily synergise with other forms of risk aversion, > whether personal, economical or social. > > I think one good sign is the growth of the Maker movement: people taking > charge over their material objects and learning to make or change things, > write their own software and so on. That is an important mindset and > something every parent should encourage in their kids (no matter what the > danger is to their material possessions). But there might also be a need to > encourage big thinking, to get people to realize that we do have the power > to change the world by inventing new things that change the rules. 3D > printers, home biohacking and being able to code is neat, but you should aim > at changing manufacturing, invent new ways of coordinating people, or > combine them with other things to make something totally unthinkable that > forever change the world. > > Any other ideas of how to instil grand ambition in people? Force them to > read a bit of Rand, Nietzsche or von Braun? > > -- > Anders Sandberg, > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Faculty of Philosophy > Oxford University > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From atymes at gmail.com Sat Jan 19 18:34:33 2013 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 10:34:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: <50FAA60B.70702@aleph.se> References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> <50FAA60B.70702@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 5:56 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > I think one good sign is the growth of the Maker movement: people taking > charge over their material objects and learning to make or change things, > write their own software and so on. That is an important mindset and > something every parent should encourage in their kids (no matter what the > danger is to their material possessions). But there might also be a need to > encourage big thinking, to get people to realize that we do have the power > to change the world by inventing new things that change the rules. 3D > printers, home biohacking and being able to code is neat, but you should aim > at changing manufacturing, invent new ways of coordinating people, or > combine them with other things to make something totally unthinkable that > forever change the world. Start small. People who are unused to dreaming *period*, aren't able to do well at truly dreaming big before they get experience dreaming small. Sure, they can imagine winning the lottery and getting a billion dollars. And Then What? There's a reason that most who win the lottery big time blow through their winnings within a decade. And sadly, things like that - non-earned sudden wealth - are the only way most people can conceive of getting the scale of power and capability that these technologies could bring them. Start them off on 3D printing, coding, and so on, and then they will start to realize that they can change the world. (It is very much like the old folk tale of the magician's apprentice, when his mentor shows his hand and asks the apprentice to pick the most magical finger - the correct answer is the apprentice's own. The first step to changing the world is to realize that *you* can.) Then introduce them to the larger concepts. From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Jan 19 17:37:24 2013 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 12:37:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: <50FAA60B.70702@aleph.se> References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> <50FAA60B.70702@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 8:56 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > I think this is an important concern. Guarding and maintaining our > infrastructure of life is not the only vital goal: instilling ambition and > dynamical optimism in the next generation is perhaps even more important. >[snip] > Any other ideas of how to instil grand ambition in people? Force them to > read a bit of Rand, Nietzsche or von Braun? Force won't work. We force kids through 12 years of public school and then 4+ more years of college/university and it produces little value. We know education is broken, but nobody seems to know how to fix it. I believe the problem stems from the education "system" being stuck in a local minimum (aka: a rut, depression, etc.) and the effort/work to climb out of that well requires more speculative investment than anyone is willing to afford. There are small-scale alternatives but they're still so new and unproven that We won't risk scaling up to a national program. Children learn. We don't have to make that happen. What they learn, however, is a matter of the environment into which they are placed. Can we better control that environment? Is there a way to diversify the educational landscape so each child is able to pursue their interests and still contribute to the benefit of society? The assembly-line/manufactured education we have now churns out a consistent product, but does that product provide any value after graduation? Is grand ambition even really desirable? If a society of insatiable consumers is the desired programming, would ambitious producers be as easily and predictably controlled? Those interests that profit from the status quo stand to lose an empire if a generation of children was encouraged to challenge the current equilibrium. I realize that may be fundamentally extropian; however, there exists considerable inertia to overcome in the resting mass of "how it's always been." From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jan 19 18:32:52 2013 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 13:32:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <009401cdf653$bbb8c7a0$332a56e0$@att.net> References: <1358601178.17753.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <009401cdf653$bbb8c7a0$332a56e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 spike wrote: > Ben it is part of extropian thinking to look at what happens if there is > no singularity and nuclear fusion never does work out for us. That's the problem, nuclear fusion is hard, really really really hard. Even nature has only figured out one way to produce intense amounts of fusion power on a large scale and that is in a supernova. The sun of course gets its energy from fusion but at any one time per volume the sun only makes about a quarter as much heat as the human body produces from chemical energy; more massive main sequence A2 stars that are about 25 times as bright as the sun have a power production density about the same as people's bodies have. Like nature human beings, at least so far, have only figured out one way to release intense amounts of fusion energy on a large scale, and that is in a H-bomb. By the way, the giant Laser's at the National Ignition Facility was supposed to reach break even in 2012, that is generate as much energy as it took to produce, but about 6 months ago they announced that wasn't going to happen because the hot dense plasma produced was not behaving as their models said it should; they gave no new date when they thought break even would be reached or even assurance that it ever would be at that facility. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Jan 19 19:35:21 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 11:35:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: <1358601178.17753.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <009401cdf653$bbb8c7a0$332a56e0$@att.net> Message-ID: <000c01cdf67c$1f6f0700$5e4d1500$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 spike wrote: > Ben it is part of extropian thinking to look at what happens if there is no singularity and nuclear fusion never does work out for us. >.That's the problem, nuclear fusion is hard, really really really hard. Even nature has only figured out one way to . John K Clark Ja. Having some kind of backup plan puts the practical in extropian notion of practical optimism. It isn't defeatism to ask the question "what happens if a miracle technology does not occur?" That being said, I think there will be plenty of cool stuff to come along that will contribute to our energy future. I don't think one single technology will carry the load, as coal did for a long time, and oil does now. I see a lot of technologies contributing, using everything we know how to do, including fracking, solar powered coal-to-liquids, massively dispersed small-plot farming in high population areas (mostly replacing suburban lawns with food crops using robots to do the heavy lifting), the works. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jan 19 19:19:53 2013 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 19:19:53 +0000 Subject: [ExI] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> <50FAA60B.70702@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 5:37 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > Is grand ambition even really desirable? If a society of insatiable > consumers is the desired programming, would ambitious producers be as > easily and predictably controlled? Those interests that profit from > the status quo stand to lose an empire if a generation of children was > encouraged to challenge the current equilibrium. I realize that may > be fundamentally extropian; however, there exists considerable inertia > to overcome in the resting mass of "how it's always been." > One problem for the developed societies has never been encountered before. There are now fewer and fewer children appearing as the population ages. This has many implications for the next 30 years. Will resources be moved to caring for the old rather than developing the young? What are the prospects for the young when the old are in the majority? Will an ageing society be much interested in dynamic exploration? Interesting times. BillK From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Jan 19 20:27:32 2013 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 15:27:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> <50FAA60B.70702@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 2:19 PM, BillK wrote: > One problem for the developed societies has never been encountered before. > There are now fewer and fewer children appearing as the population ages. > This has many implications for the next 30 years. > > Will resources be moved to caring for the old rather than developing the young? > What are the prospects for the young when the old are in the majority? > Will an ageing society be much interested in dynamic exploration? > Interesting times. Hopefully we can keep the aging population healthy into triple-digit ages. I'd consider a major success when the term "geezer" evokes an image of an able-bodied centenarian who perhaps incessantly reminisces rather than the current image of frail and feeble old person. "Interesting times" - yeah. From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Jan 20 03:38:24 2013 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 22:38:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: <1358601178.17753.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 8:50 AM, BillK wrote: It is more likely that an emergency > situation will mean our remaining resources will be concentrated on > delivering one new power source. And the other options discarded for > another 100 years. ### Thorium is about as common as lead, and LFTR reactors have been proven as highly efficient and safe a long time ago. The whole energy and resources scare is a complete non-issue. ------------------- > > If we choose wrong, then the worst fears of 'the sky is falling' > people could be realised. ### The real problem are the sky-is-falling people. Alfred Toynbee wrote that the fall of a civilization starts once the elites lose their confidence. In its ascendancy, a civilization is borne aloft by the exuberance of the few, brashly confident in their will to change the world, who are followed by the meek masses. In Goetterdaemmerung, a pall of fear and depression descends on the thought-leaders, and those who are lost will lead others into oblivion. If I didn't fully expect the Rapture of the Nerds to erase us from this world I would have thought that the resource we may truly lack is the social capital needed to focus minds and arms on the merely technical issues - but then, I do think that the robots will soon take over, and everything will work out OK (for the robots, that is). Rafal PS. I will be a robot too, when I grow up. From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sat Jan 19 21:19:10 2013 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sat, 19 Jan 2013 22:19:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: <50FAA60B.70702@aleph.se> References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> <50FAA60B.70702@aleph.se> Message-ID: On 19 January 2013 14:56, Anders Sandberg wrote: > I think this is an important concern. Guarding and maintaining our infrastructure of life is not the only vital goal: instilling ambition and dynamical optimism in the next generation is perhaps even more important. . > Any other ideas of how to instil grand ambition in people? Force them to read a bit of Rand, Nietzsche or von Braun? Not sure about Rand, but Nietzsche and von Braun have been my idols since age 14... :-) -- Stefano Vaj From anders at aleph.se Sun Jan 20 14:26:40 2013 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 14:26:40 +0000 Subject: [ExI] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> <50FAA60B.70702@aleph.se> Message-ID: <50FBFEA0.2060900@aleph.se> On 19/01/2013 21:19, Stefano Vaj wrote: >> Any other ideas of how to instil grand ambition in people? Force them to read a bit of Rand, Nietzsche or von Braun? > Not sure about Rand, but Nietzsche and von Braun have been my idols > since age 14... :-) It would be interesting to see when great ambition is founded in life. I have a suspicion that it is pretty common for kids to develop it at an early age, but it would be good to analyse the necessary preconditions and triggers. People have been looking at the life histories of exceptional people checking for preconditions of talent blossoming, but I don't know if the same thing has been done for ambition. (I did not find much in PubMed, at least; see below) I have never been much for idols, but clearly reading sf at an early age filled me with the idea that one *could* be amazingly ambitious - the heroes of Jules Verne, the epic projects of classic hard sf, finally the cosmological re-engineering of Dyson and Tipler. The key thing was the realization that the universe is enormous, yet there exist actions that allow you to leverage things to ever greater scales. So I just set out to make myself into some kind of scientist-hero able to do that, pursuing self-enhancement, learning and networking. I just wish more people did that kind of attempted life -shaping. Some relevant papers: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22545622 On the value of aiming high: the causes and consequences of ambition. "Results indicated that ambition was predicted by individual differences-conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and general mental ability-and a socioeconomic background variable: parents' occupational prestige. Ambition, in turn, was positively related to educational attainment, occupation prestige, and income. Ambition had significant total effects with all of the endogenous variables except mortality." http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1963-03848-001 Some family determinants of ambition. Again, family education and family stability seemed relevant. However, I suspect the ambition they looked for were merely aiming at a prestigious occupation, not changing the world. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22180878 Ambition gone awry: the long-term socioeconomic consequences of misaligned and uncertain ambitions in adolescence. This one shows that having aspirations that are in line with reality is helpful, at least when it comes to occupational status. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21921915 The evolution of overconfidence. This is an argument why we are all a bit overconfident on average. But overconfidence is not the same as ambition. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19070437 Why are modern scientists so dull? How science selects for perseverance and sociability at the expense of intelligence and creativity. Argues that modern science selects strongly for intelligence and conscientiousness, when it should be selecting for intelligence and psychoticism (the personality trait) if it wants to break new ground. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rtomek at ceti.pl Sun Jan 20 15:39:47 2013 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:39:47 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: <50FBFEA0.2060900@aleph.se> References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> <50FAA60B.70702@aleph.se> <50FBFEA0.2060900@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Sun, 20 Jan 2013, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 19/01/2013 21:19, Stefano Vaj wrote: > > > Any other ideas of how to instil grand ambition in people? Force > > > them to read a bit of Rand, Nietzsche or von Braun? > > Not sure about Rand, but Nietzsche and von Braun have been my idols > > since age 14... :-) > > It would be interesting to see when great ambition is founded in life. I Ambitions. But not curiosity? Eh. The choice of wording is... interesting. What kind of people will they be - very wanting but not really understanding what they want and too stupid to learn who wanted what before them, how they made it or how they failed. Myself, I find this plan doomed by design. [...] > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19070437 > Why are modern scientists so dull? How science selects for perseverance and > sociability at the expense of intelligence and creativity. > Argues that modern science selects strongly for intelligence and > conscientiousness, when it should be selecting for intelligence and > psychoticism (the personality trait) if it wants to break new ground. This idea I could support. Heh. Why they become dull? Maybe because they are made to be such. Bonsai doesn't grow high and its apples are not big either. 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 Sun Jan 20 16:23:21 2013 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 17:23:21 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <1358601178.17753.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> References: <1358601178.17753.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20130120162321.GT6172@leitl.org> On Sat, Jan 19, 2013 at 05:12:58AM -0800, Ben Zaiboc wrote: > This is my greatest fear (well, this and rabid chihuahuas), > that we will learn to make do with less, and less, and > less, all the way down to the freezing in the dark scenario. That's a perfectly possible scenario. And it's all our fault. We wasted the last 40+ years. What we're doing is two orders of magnitude too little, at least two decades too late. Look into the bathroom mirror. There's your culprit, right there. > We need expansive, /extropian/ thinking, not this defeatist, > depressing 'sustainability' attitude. There is no such thing > as sustainability, we either expand or contract, win or lose, live or die. Uh, sustainability is exactly about not dying. It doesn't mean no exponentials, but this physical universe does not carry exponentials for very long. > All the more depressing when you realise that there is such > a huge abundance of energy and material just floating about, > doing nothing, begging to be used, yet most people seem to > want to turn their back on it and slump into a slow extinction. Right, and so many of them are on *this* mailing list! An evil fairy snuck in sometime a decade ago, and turned its readers into reactionary dinos. Ugh. From kanzure at gmail.com Sun Jan 20 16:45:22 2013 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 10:45:22 -0600 Subject: [ExI] [tt] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: <20130120152645.GF6172@leitl.org> References: <20130120152645.GF6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > cosmological re-engineering of Dyson and Tipler. The key thing was the > realization that the universe is enormous, yet there exist actions that > allow you to leverage things to ever greater scales. So I just set out to > make myself into some kind of scientist-hero able to do that, pursuing > self-enhancement, learning and networking. I just wish more people did that > kind of attempted life -shaping. But didn't you ....settle? (/runs) - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Jan 20 17:39:14 2013 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:39:14 +0100 Subject: [ExI] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> <50FAA60B.70702@aleph.se> <50FBFEA0.2060900@aleph.se> Message-ID: On 20 January 2013 16:39, Tomasz Rola wrote: > This idea I could support. Heh. Why they become dull? Maybe because they > are made to be such. > The double environmental effect. First, the environment select the intrinsic traits of the members of a given population. Then, it hones its phenotypes to perfection. :-) -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jan 20 18:56:56 2013 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:56:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <20130120162321.GT6172@leitl.org> References: <1358601178.17753.YahooMailClassic@web165005.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> <20130120162321.GT6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Eugen Leitl wrote: >> This is my greatest fear (well, this and rabid chihuahuas), that we will >> learn to make do with less, and less, and >> less, all the way down to the freezing in the dark scenario. >> > > > That's a perfectly possible scenario. And it's all our fault. We wasted > the last 40+ years. What we're doing is two orders of magnitude too little, > at least two decades too late. Look into the bathroom mirror. There's your > culprit, right there. > There is a certain Calvinist holier than thou attitude in that and I find it somewhat less than endearing, rather like those a century ago who said drugs shouldn't be given to women during childbirth to relieve their pain because God wanted them to suffer. Environmentalists gained a lot of political power about 40 years ago and there is no doubt they did a lot of good by cleaning up the air and water, but they also have a lot to answer for, like a virtual worldwide ban on DDT that ended up killing a lot of people. And today the problem is that environmentalists never saw a source of energy they didn't hate; oil causes oil spills, coal causes greenhouse warming, fracking contaminates the groundwater with water, hydroelectric floods the land, geothermal causes earthquakes, solar cells are too dark and take up so much land that they endanger obscure desert lizards, wind turbines are too ugly and noisy and kill little birdies. And as for nuclear, well the mere utterance of that forbidden word sends them (and even a particular member of this list) into irrational expletive filled infantile tantrums. The environmentally correct solution is that we should freeze to death in the dark and stop complaining about it because we deserve it. I think there may be a better solution. > > most people seem to want to turn their back on it and slump into a slow >> extinction. >> > > > Right, and so many of them are on *this* mailing list! An evil fairy > snuck in sometime a decade ago, and turned > its readers into reactionary dinos. Ugh. > Then one can't help but ask, why are you here? Eugen, I've known you since the 90's and we've disagreed a lot but you only went bat shit crazy about 6 months ago, what the hell happened? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at canonizer.com Sun Jan 20 19:35:28 2013 From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 12:35:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: <50FBFEA0.2060900@aleph.se> References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> <50FAA60B.70702@aleph.se> <50FBFEA0.2060900@aleph.se> Message-ID: <50FC4700.5070103@canonizer.com> Good and Important moral question! In my opinion there are multiple dimensions to ambition and getting things done. Religious people tend to have a "He's got the hold world in his hands" (so I don't have to do anything, God will do it all for me) attitude. Obviously, a big killer of ambition there. Every 0ne becomes just a spectator, watching and waiting for divine intervention from above, with zero ambition to do anything but worship and wallow in whatever that is - thinking God has already made everything perfect or is maybe the perfect plan for some "Godly ways" which we can't comprehend. Most religions are also very hierarchical, leading to a similar "I don't need to think for myself, nor do I need to take any ambition, i just need to do what my superiors or the guy at the top, tell me to do, and wait for them to do it all." This of course extends into many corporate systems. I work at 3M, a very hierarchical institution, and it drives me crazy at how bottle necked that organization is. Almost nobody has any ambition to do anything, outside of what their manager tells them to do. And the organization fosters that kind of thinking. And even if you do take such ambition, management tends to think you're failing, because your not doing 100% only what they want you to do. In that kind of bottle necked management system, only the top 1 or 2 most important things get done, leaving everything else a miserable, terrible, never gets done mess, and nobody can communicate institution wide. Another most important of all issue is large scale co-operation. This is where religious people blow away liberal humanistic type loners. Even your question seems to ignore this. In my opinion so many transhumanists have the Jules Vern type attitude so many Sci-Fi heros have, that they can do it all themselves, damn the rest of the world - let them rot in hell, for all I care. My way or the highway. This is why large church organization rule the world, while humanists are just seen as lonely winners and sinners, never doing anything significant at all, contributing to what the rest of the world is doing. In reality, you can't do anything significant, alone. Maybe make it around the world in 80 days, but big wop. Yet, as soon as you can just find enough people that want the same thing you do, heaven and earth will move to make it happen, regardless of how motivated any of the millions of individuals are or aren't. Then of course there is what should you and the crowd be motivated about? Intelligent liberals, of course shine, above religious types, in this regard. In fact, their moral intelligence is what makes them independent and liberal in the first place. But for people not blessed with such great DNA/environment..., often time they are far better in a religion, than trying to know, for themselves, what they should be motivated to do. And even the most morally intelligent person, is he, alone, the best possible at knowing what is right and wrong to be ambitiously working towards achieving? Shold we be putting everything into getting to the center of the earth, or is that, for the time being , a big moral waste of time, while people are still heading to rotting in the hell that is the grave? Wouldn't the smartest, most morally achieved person, do far better, on all moral decisions, if he could select a huge set of who he considered experts, on any particular issue, and then survey for what the expert consensus way to act was, on all important moral issues? And also wouldn't he be far more wise if he could have a concise and quantitative representation of why that was, for reference (without having to read 20K+ peer reviewed documents on the subject)? Here, large scale co-operation and diversity, also helps any individual be far more wise than even the most wise individual, alone, can be, on all important issues. Also, religions have bread us to think it is immoral to tell anyone else what we want, that only what God wants is all important, and any deviation we have from that is "wordy", mistaken, immoral, and deserving of hell / excommunication / firing. Taking this inbred programming is why hierarchies are still the only capable large organizations. So, in my opinion, the most important 'ambition' is simply being motivated to find out and express exactly what you want to everyone. And to do so in a way that you can find others that agree with you, in an open survey consensus building way. You also need to know, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone else wants, so you can be sure to not get in their way, especially any minority, while also seeking what you want with everyone else that wants the same. Once you find enough people that want the same thing you want, heaven and earth will move to make it happen, regardless of how ambitious anyone is or isn't beyond that. If you can know, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone wants, wars will cease, political debate will stop, and everyone will finally become very focused and ambitiously motivated to co-operate and get exactly that for everyone as efficiently and justly as possible. And of course finding out, concisely and quantitatively, what everyone wants, is what the open survey system at Canonizer.com is all about. And if that's not the best way to find out what everyone wants and believes, let's find something better. You can't just have ambition, you need to have a vision of where that ambition should take not just you, but everyone. Once you have that clear vision, everything else, including ambition, will just happen. Brent Allsop On 1/20/2013 7:26 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 19/01/2013 21:19, Stefano Vaj wrote: >>> Any other ideas of how to instil grand ambition in people? Force them to read a bit of Rand, Nietzsche or von Braun? >> Not sure about Rand, but Nietzsche and von Braun have been my idols >> since age 14... :-) > > It would be interesting to see when great ambition is founded in life. > I have a suspicion that it is pretty common for kids to develop it at > an early age, but it would be good to analyse the necessary > preconditions and triggers. People have been looking at the life > histories of exceptional people checking for preconditions of talent > blossoming, but I don't know if the same thing has been done for > ambition. (I did not find much in PubMed, at least; see below) > > I have never been much for idols, but clearly reading sf at an early > age filled me with the idea that one *could* be amazingly ambitious - > the heroes of Jules Verne, the epic projects of classic hard sf, > finally the cosmological re-engineering of Dyson and Tipler. The key > thing was the realization that the universe is enormous, yet there > exist actions that allow you to leverage things to ever greater > scales. So I just set out to make myself into some kind of > scientist-hero able to do that, pursuing self-enhancement, learning > and networking. I just wish more people did that kind of attempted > life -shaping. > > > Some relevant papers: > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22545622 > On the value of aiming high: the causes and consequences of ambition. > > "Results indicated that ambition was predicted by individual > differences-conscientiousness, extraversion, neuroticism, and > general mental ability-and a socioeconomic background variable: > parents' occupational prestige. Ambition, in turn, was positively > related to educational attainment, occupation prestige, and > income. Ambition had significant total effects with all of the > endogenous variables except mortality." > > http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1963-03848-001 > Some family determinants of ambition. > Again, family education and family stability seemed relevant. However, > I suspect the ambition they looked for were merely aiming at a > prestigious occupation, not changing the world. > > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22180878 > Ambition gone awry: the long-term socioeconomic consequences of > misaligned and uncertain ambitions in adolescence. > This one shows that having aspirations that are in line with reality > is helpful, at least when it comes to occupational status. > > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21921915 > The evolution of overconfidence. > This is an argument why we are all a bit overconfident on average. But > overconfidence is not the same as ambition. > > https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19070437 > Why are modern scientists so dull? How science selects for > perseverance and sociability at the expense of intelligence and > creativity. > Argues that modern science selects strongly for intelligence and > conscientiousness, when it should be selecting for intelligence and > psychoticism (the personality trait) if it wants to break new ground. > -- > Anders Sandberg, > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Faculty of Philosophy > 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 kanzure at gmail.com Sun Jan 20 19:44:44 2013 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:44:44 -0600 Subject: [ExI] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: <50FC4700.5070103@canonizer.com> References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> <50FAA60B.70702@aleph.se> <50FBFEA0.2060900@aleph.se> <50FC4700.5070103@canonizer.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: > In my opinion so many transhumanists have the Jules Vern type attitude so > many Sci-Fi heros have, that they can do it all themselves, damn the rest of > the world - let them rot in hell, for all I care. My way or the highway. This smells like a strawman. Which transhumanist acts like that? Which person exactly wants people to rot in a hell? - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 From eugen at leitl.org Sun Jan 20 21:14:58 2013 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:14:58 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> Message-ID: <20130120211458.GF6172@leitl.org> On Fri, Jan 18, 2013 at 09:48:01PM -0800, spike wrote: > I may have found a problem in my own line of reasoning. > > So what if things work out exactly as I envision? What if... society > recognizes the Red Queen effect in the remaining productive oil wells and Do you see any evidence for that? Not me. > fracking, where we need to run faster and faster just to stay where we are, > and so we start to get serious about alternatives: we build nukes, we > install ground-based solar, we build enormous wind farms, we manage to not > get into wars over dwindling fossil fuels, we do all things needed to > transition to renewables, in a period of about 30 years. It's too late. A number of people are going to die, and I doubt they'll go gently into the good night. > OK, best case, what if we manage to do that? Then we have a generation > which is pouring heart and soul into just trying to equal what we always > took for granted. We had these grand visions of orbiting space stations and > moon colonies and all that stuff that never came to pass, but the now > generation would not have the luxury of grand visions. It would have only > small visions of struggling to break even. If they are ambitious and http://www.reddit.com/r/lostgeneration > successful, their world will be a lot like their grandfather's world, only > not as good in some important ways. The energy is scarcer, they need to > think carefully about how they live their lives. They don't really have the > option of the wild careless stuff we used to do, like drag racing our > Detroits and all the wild dissipations our generation enjoyed. > > Of course some things will be crazy better: their virtual worlds and such, > their computer gaming. > > My vision for the future is coping with gradually tightening energy sources > and doing cool stuff anyway, replacing fossil fuels with renewables and > such, but there might be a serious flaw in that line of reasoning. What if > the now generation has only small visions to dream, only break-even as a > goal? Will that work? Will they take up the burden of struggling to > maintain what we were just given? From brent.allsop at canonizer.com Sun Jan 20 20:45:06 2013 From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 13:45:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> <50FAA60B.70702@aleph.se> <50FBFEA0.2060900@aleph.se> <50FC4700.5070103@canonizer.com> Message-ID: <50FC5752.7080005@canonizer.com> Hi Brian, Sorry, That probably wasn't the best way to communicate what I was trying to say. Let me try it this way. In almost any community, you can find a church full of hundreds of people all co-operating, most of who will do anything they can to help you, if you step inside, especially if you are like they are. Where have there ever been enough liberals, willing to work together, enough to build even one church or accomplish anything close to the scale of building a church? Another single example is what the LDS church did, to get Proposition 8 passed in California. Of course, that was an imoral thing to do, but the fact is that hundreds of thousands of Mormons all worked together very efficiently to get what they thought they all wanted. LDS church leaders canceled typical weekly meetings, and instead organized and handed out call lists to everyone, and everyone worked on calling, getting out the vote, instead of their normal meetings. They also reached out to other similarly well organized religions like the Catholic church, and efficiently managed and did what was required to get what they wanted done. Then, the liberals, (who should have easily been able to get something better, after all this is California, home of San Francisco, and Hollywood...) after Prop 8 was passed, because they did nothing, they just ran out into the streets, completely unorganized, bitching and moning that someone didn't do the work to get what they wanted. In SLC, they all marched around the LDS temple, stopping traffic, and more or lees keeping any Mormons for working to get what they wanted, in completely unorganized, useless, and it's too late ways. They all started and gathered in a park, and attempted to have a speech for the entire crowd, but nobody was organized enough to even set up a good sound system, so nobody could hear anything anyone was saying. While a few blocks away, in another park, there was a will organized crowd, with a very nice sound system - giving the other POV. The biggest problem was, nobody from one side was listening to the other - i.e. zero communication. Just both sides trying to fight and destroy the other. Obviously, the liberals and transhumanists are still loosing this battle, simply because they can't work together, like the other side can. Should we build a list of all transhumanist that have not only wanted to excommunicate the Mormon Transhumanists from being a member of h+, but were also ambitious enough to take actions to excommunicate them? Even though, now, after only a few years, there are more than 250 MTA members (see attached graph of accelerating MTA growth, and project this into the future). I would argue they are more active and well organized, and accomplishing more to push forward towards what we all should be doing than all other lonely transhumanists, combined? Which branch of h+, do you think, will be the first to be well organized enough to build and maintain, the equivalent of a church building? Every week, more than 35,000 Mormons gather in their beautiful conference center. Can anyone give me any other example, where transhumanists have been able to organize in such effect ways, and do something similar, even once? Has there been any group of transhumanists, gather anywhere, that was more than 1000? The world transhumanist association, and a few other conferences, after years and years of trying, have gotten close to a mere 1000. And maybe they would have gotten there, if a portion of them hadn't split off, and tried to form the World Transhumanist Society, thinking they could do it better, for whatever reason, so they didn't want to support that other group. Brent Allsop On 1/20/2013 12:44 PM, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 1:35 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: >> In my opinion so many transhumanists have the Jules Vern type attitude so >> many Sci-Fi heros have, that they can do it all themselves, damn the rest of >> the world - let them rot in hell, for all I care. My way or the highway. > This smells like a strawman. Which transhumanist acts like that? Which > person exactly wants people to rot in a hell? > > - Bryan > http://heybryan.org/ > 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MTA_Growth_2012.JPG Type: image/jpeg Size: 47082 bytes Desc: not available URL: From anders at aleph.se Sun Jan 20 22:28:24 2013 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:28:24 +0000 Subject: [ExI] [tt] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: References: <20130120152645.GF6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: <50FC6F88.1070606@aleph.se> On 20/01/2013 16:45, Bryan Bishop wrote: > On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 9:26 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: >> cosmological re-engineering of Dyson and Tipler. The key thing was the >> realization that the universe is enormous, yet there exist actions that >> allow you to leverage things to ever greater scales. So I just set out to >> make myself into some kind of scientist-hero able to do that, pursuing >> self-enhancement, learning and networking. I just wish more people did that >> kind of attempted life -shaping. > But didn't you ....settle? (/runs) Hahaha! You can try running, but my robot armies will get you. Eventually. :-) Seriously, there is an interesting aspect of life design that doesn't seem to be discussed much: how to handle slow maturation and goal evolution. Typically when you set out to change yourself your perspective might be long-term, but the actual means and practical goals tend to be rather short term (get an education, master self-control, get a fortune). They are also breaks in habit and behavior, which means they are easier to do when you do not have much invested in your identity. Over time as you start building up something worthwhile the cost/benefit ratio will change - you have found a useful path, and fewer radical changes are worth it. In addition you will also mature, both as a result of accumulating experience and by biological processes (personality often shifts in fairly predictable ways across the lifespan, like increasing conscientiousness and decreasing neuroticism). The experience may modify your goals and plans, and the personality changes will also shift how you express them. This is neither a good or a bad process in itself. Whether the changes actually are for the better, neutral or bad needs to be evaluated by some yardstick. Once cannot just trust one's current estimate (biased by commitments, status quo bias etc.), one's youthful estimate (lack of experience and knowledge, different values) or outside observers (what do *they* know?) - it has to be weighed together in order to see what makes sense as a life structure. In my case I am reasonably happy with my plan. While I am doing far less hands on hard research or coding than my 20-year old self would have expected, I am doing research that I judge useful and even influential in the right circles. Acting as a public intellectual seems to have better effect in terms of effort for pushing the transhumanist agenda where it is needed than a more activist style; if we want policies going our direction we better inject them in the right networks. (Yes, this involves an interesting balance between being radical and mainstream - you need to be radical enough to be interesting to listen to and to stretch the boundary of thinkable policy, yet mainstream enough to be listened to). Many of the self-enhancement techniques I learned early on have become second nature (stress management, efficient learning, various forms of emotional control), although time management and bias reduction still remain hard. The technological enhancements I use are less impressive than I would have predicted, but at least the net and smartphones are ahead of the curve and the cognitive enhancer drugs are not too bad. The fact that I am OK with a slower rate of change than my younger self would have been OK with is an interesting combination of bias and experience - I actually think there are reasons not to rush too rapidly with certain technologies, and I understand better how tricky it is to get rapid technological change (doesn't mean it is not desirable, it is just much harder to get it). All in all, I think I could convince at least my 1992 self that the overall plan looks good in all domains except amassing a fortune. So stay tuned for that robot army. It might just be that I have allies running it rather having built it myself. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University From brent.allsop at canonizer.com Sun Jan 20 23:48:02 2013 From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 16:48:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: <50FC6F88.1070606@aleph.se> References: <20130120152645.GF6172@leitl.org> <50FC6F88.1070606@aleph.se> Message-ID: <50FC8232.4040600@canonizer.com> On 1/20/2013 3:28 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > if we want policies going our direction we better inject them in the > right networks. (Yes, this involves an interesting balance between > being radical and mainstream - you need to be radical enough to be > interesting to listen to and to stretch the boundary of thinkable > policy, yet mainstream enough to be listened to). Yes, and you desperately need to measure for what is too radical, what works, and what doesn't. You have to know, concisely and quantitatively, what others are interested in, their terminology, and be able to speak, from within their theoretical / thinking framework. Just telling them what works for you, or any lonely transhumanist, even if not very radical, will most likely completely fail for the masses. Brent Allsop From spike66 at att.net Sun Jan 20 23:57:17 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 15:57:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] [tt] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: <50FC6F88.1070606@aleph.se> References: <20130120152645.GF6172@leitl.org> <50FC6F88.1070606@aleph.se> Message-ID: <007901cdf769$e0e25b10$a2a71130$@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 ... >...Seriously, there is an interesting aspect of life design that doesn't seem to be discussed much: how to handle slow maturation and goal evolution... -- Anders Sandberg, _______________________________________________ I don't know if this is related to what Anders had in mind, but perhaps. My son has taken an interest in native American cultures. Today I took him up to the Ohlone Museum near here. They had a docent talk on basket weaving, examples of knapped flint, a tule reed boat and such technologies that were in use by the stone age people that inhabited the area until they were mostly displaced. Something I learned today was that their culture was not swept away primarily by the missionaries, since there were not all that many of them, but rather by the gold rush of 1949. The missionaries took square aim directly at the heathen culture and way of life, but scarcely scratched it. The '49ers had zero interest in the Ohlones, didn't care if they lived or died, but just wanted at the gold. The Ohlones themselves recognized it was the '49ers that ended their traditional way of life. What really got me to pondering was how the hell is it that a stone age culture reaches an equilibrium, and why does it stay right there, doing the same thing, using the same technologies for 100k years? The modern Ohlones had not one thing that they couldn't have had 100 millennia ago: they had no metallurgy, they made homes and boats out of reeds, they made spear points out of flint and used those to fish in San Francisco Bay. Why didn't they ever want something else? Why did the Europeans break out and invent stuff, but the native Americans generally did not? How does a society reach equilibrium, or technological stagnation? Can we even imagine reaching some kind of equilibrium now, short of a singularity? spike From rtomek at ceti.pl Mon Jan 21 00:34:13 2013 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 01:34:13 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> <50FAA60B.70702@aleph.se> <50FBFEA0.2060900@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Sun, 20 Jan 2013, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 20 January 2013 16:39, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > > This idea I could support. Heh. Why they become dull? Maybe because > > they are made to be such. > > > > The double environmental effect. > > First, the environment select the intrinsic traits of the members of a > given population. > > Then, it hones its phenotypes to perfection. :-) Yeah. For the same reasons, certain members of population are turned away. I don't think it is really good. OTOH, I am by no means entomologist, so my observations are un-systematic and un-objective. Perhaps this effect was always present - being in a position to tell other people what the world is like, getting hot green right into one's hand for such services, this _is_ great niche. OTOH, the green is not so big on average, I think. And if one happens to be in wrong science, there is not even "moral win" to justify doing such job (if one gets to teach students who are not very interested or maybe even dropouts from other places). So apart from careful selection, there may be few more additional reasons. Anyway, the notion that scientist is open to new ways seems to be - kind of - exaggerated. There were quite a few folks in the past who were initially shunned by their collegues, their ideas sometimes accepted only after their pitiful death. I usually don't bother to remember their names but today I have just read about one mathematician, Georg Cantor, who spent his old years in poverty and hunger (and nowadays, I happen to stumble upon his name one way or another). Being right or ahead simply does not sound like good evolutionary advice, at least not for humans. And scientists are humans, definitely. BTW, another guy was Nicola Tesla. To me (perhaps I am misinformed) Tesla was curious while Edison was ambitious. That Edison medal was awarded to Tesla, rather than the other way is a (indirect and anecdotal) proof to me, that there is something very uncivilish with this civilisation of ours. 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 Mon Jan 21 02:24:20 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 18:24:20 -0800 Subject: [ExI] amateur entomology: was RE: instilling ambition Message-ID: <001801cdf77e$6c3253f0$4496fbd0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Tomasz Rola ... >...OTOH, I am by no means entomologist...Regards, Tomasz Rola -- Nor am I, and that really bugs me. About five years ago, I mentioned that I was observing unusually large numbers of dead and dying bees on the pavement and sidewalk. That was (I think) in the 2007-2008 timeframe. It wasn't nearly as bad in the following years, until now. This year is a good factor of 2 worse than the previous worst year for bee deaths. I am not including the one anomalous observation, where there were hundreds of dead and dying bees on the street and sidewalk which I observed on 1 January. I collected about fifty of the bees, and contacted a number of local entomologists to offer to send them the dead bees for testing, but none of them had any real interest in it, much to my surprise. In any case, I still have the ~50 dead bees, if anyone knows anyone who wants them. spike From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Jan 21 03:04:23 2013 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 22:04:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] [tt] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: <007901cdf769$e0e25b10$a2a71130$@att.net> References: <20130120152645.GF6172@leitl.org> <50FC6F88.1070606@aleph.se> <007901cdf769$e0e25b10$a2a71130$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 6:57 PM, spike wrote: > same thing, using the same technologies for 100k years? The modern Ohlones > had not one thing that they couldn't have had 100 millennia ago: they had no > metallurgy, they made homes and boats out of reeds, they made spear points > out of flint and used those to fish in San Francisco Bay. > > Why didn't they ever want something else? Why did the Europeans break out > and invent stuff, but the native Americans generally did not? How does a > society reach equilibrium, or technological stagnation? Can we even imagine > reaching some kind of equilibrium now, short of a singularity? Perhaps they didn't reach "peak reeds" or flint scarcity? Was European conquest of the rest of the world driven by resource acquisition to further fuel resource acquisition? Arguably the only reason technology exists is to do more with less... because at some point the energy equation says you must or you'll die. From spike66 at att.net Mon Jan 21 04:01:52 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 20:01:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <20130120211458.GF6172@leitl.org> References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> <20130120211458.GF6172@leitl.org> Message-ID: <002e01cdf78c$0c61f1c0$2525d540$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Eugen Leitl >... >> ... so we start to get serious about alternatives: we build > nukes, we install ground-based solar, we build enormous wind farms, we > manage to not get into wars over dwindling fossil fuels, we do all > things needed to transition to renewables, in a period of about 30 years. >...It's too late. A number of people are going to die, and I doubt they'll go gently into the good night... Eugen Leitl Articles like this one, pointed out by Tomasz Rola, make me think otherwise: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/print/2012/09/the-cheapest-generation/30 9060/ The article has the ring of truth to it from my own experience. I talk to teenagers whenever I get a chance, and I have noted a remarkable characteristic of the Y generation: as a group they don't seem to give a damn about cars, and don't seem to have much of an appetite for high end consumer stuff. I notice whenever I go to car shows, it is the graying set, seldom 20 somethings and almost completely absent of teens. I don't know what the under-30 crowd does to entertain itself, but I have an interesting theory, perhaps driven by hope. When one is young and single, motivations are driven by the desire to copulate. I think of all the driving that took place in my own misspent youth, and the yield, which was so low as to be almost negligible. The now generation can make all this happen so much more efficiently using Facebook and all the other ways that young people meet online. If you are striking up relationships online, the pool of potential mates is enormous, so one might as well start with someone who lives close by, and all the energy-inefficient aspects of the mating game can be done using electronic connections only. So my theory is that compared to my own misspent youth, the amount of driving per unit copulation has reduced by an order of magnitude. Regarding a comment I posted regarding very small scale suburban agriculture, doing such a thing is analogous to restaurants discontinuing the long-standing practice of bringing water. It didn't save much water, but the constant reminder caused the proles to start thinking of water conservation on a large scale. If everyone starts to grow food plants where one's yard once was, it doesn't actually produce much food, but it produces useful awareness of the effort and energy that goes into food production. This awareness is appalling in its collective absence in society today. We never think much about food, and we take completely for granted that food will always be in the local supermarket. What if we all grew a little food in our own yards? Would not that cause us to become far more aware of the challenges ahead, and influence us to get on them? I think it will. spike From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jan 21 04:57:06 2013 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 20 Jan 2013 23:57:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: <50FC8232.4040600@canonizer.com> References: <20130120152645.GF6172@leitl.org> <50FC6F88.1070606@aleph.se> <50FC8232.4040600@canonizer.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 6:48 PM, Brent Allsop wrote: Just telling them what works > for you, or any lonely transhumanist, even if not very radical, will most > likely completely fail for the masses ### It came as a surprise to me but recently I learned that the masses are almost irrelevant to the direction that democratic societies take. Murray's "Coming Apart", earlier Caplan's "Myth of the Rational Voter", recently some articles quoted on Econlib, all these convinced me that the roughly 90% of people who are not members of the broadly defined elite are just tagging along for the ride. Whenever you want to change the world, appeal to bobos and their congeners, forget proles. Rafal From anders at aleph.se Mon Jan 21 06:52:24 2013 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 06:52:24 +0000 Subject: [ExI] breakout culture (Was: ambition) In-Reply-To: <007901cdf769$e0e25b10$a2a71130$@att.net> References: <20130120152645.GF6172@leitl.org> <50FC6F88.1070606@aleph.se> <007901cdf769$e0e25b10$a2a71130$@att.net> Message-ID: <50FCE5A8.3060506@aleph.se> On 20/01/2013 23:57, spike wrote: > What really got me to pondering was how the hell is it that a stone > age culture reaches an equilibrium, and why does it stay right there, > doing the same thing, using the same technologies for 100k years? The > modern Ohlones had not one thing that they couldn't have had 100 > millennia ago: they had no metallurgy, they made homes and boats out > of reeds, they made spear points out of flint and used those to fish > in San Francisco Bay. Why didn't they ever want something else? Why > did the Europeans break out and invent stuff, but the native Americans > generally did not? How does a society reach equilibrium, or > technological stagnation? Can we even imagine reaching some kind of > equilibrium now, short of a singularity? I think this is one of the big anthropological, sociological and historical questions for our community. We think about this quite a lot over at FHI, and usually wish there was an anthropologist in the house. Jared Diamond made a rather neat argument in "Guns, Germs and Steel" that it takes a combination of material factors to enable a culture to invent the "next level" - agriculture was invented several times, but only in special regions with the right climate and animal/plant species, the geography shapes the size of the local world of interacting countries, and this in turn influences how diverse it can be or how much surplus stuff can be applied to civilization. One can debate any detail, but I think the overall picture works. However, that only explains preconditions: within such regions people can go on for 100K years without changing their lifestyle. I am working on a paper on the Tasmanian technology trap: small populations have a hard time maintaining a complex culture. (If you are few, then the chance of losing the only guy with a certain skill is pretty high) This is another factor that no doubt keeps many cultures down. They are too few to develop and use certain technologies that would allow them to gain the calories needed to grow to a larger group. Yet this model mainly works on islands where there is a pretty fixed limit: on mainlands it is enough that a single group gets large and dense and things will happen. This is one popular explanation of the Neolithic revolution, in fact. So in the end, I suspect that it is really down to ideas, culture and memes. Most humans are conformists and happy to keep what they have. Those few cultures that go for change are wildly unstable and mostly fail. But occasionally, rarely, they form new kinds of dynamical equilibria. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jan 21 12:40:31 2013 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 13:40:31 +0100 Subject: [ExI] [tt] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: References: <20130120152645.GF6172@leitl.org> <50FC6F88.1070606@aleph.se> <007901cdf769$e0e25b10$a2a71130$@att.net> Message-ID: <20130121124031.GA6172@leitl.org> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 10:04:23PM -0500, Mike Dougherty wrote: > Was European conquest of the rest of the world driven by resource > acquisition to further fuel resource acquisition? Arguably the only The first fuel crisis was deforestation (unslaked lime, glass, pottery and bricks, charcoal), and building large fleets exacerbated that. The population explosion was only possible due to conversion from biofuels to fossil (peat, coal, oil, gas). Oh, and I was wrong about the energy transition volume necessary relatively to 1890. It's not 10x, it's 20x (20 EJ vs. 400 EJ, 2010). Last time it took 50 years. > reason technology exists is to do more with less... because at some > point the energy equation says you must or you'll die. From eugen at leitl.org Mon Jan 21 14:31:24 2013 From: eugen at leitl.org (Eugen Leitl) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 15:31:24 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <002e01cdf78c$0c61f1c0$2525d540$@att.net> References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> <20130120211458.GF6172@leitl.org> <002e01cdf78c$0c61f1c0$2525d540$@att.net> Message-ID: <20130121143124.GD6172@leitl.org> On Sun, Jan 20, 2013 at 08:01:52PM -0800, spike wrote: > >...It's too late. A number of people are going to die, and I doubt they'll > go gently into the good night... Eugen Leitl > > Articles like this one, pointed out by Tomasz Rola, make me think otherwise: The article is about US, which is not relevant. The ~1 Gpeople currently on the brink of starvation are not in the US. The energy hunger will cause famines in those regions already on the precipice, so it's roughly 2-3 Gpeople most affected, mostly in Africa and parts of Asia. It is hard to say when population peaks, the World3 curves look as if it's shifted to 2040 or even 2050. Predicting wars with WoMD is even completely impossible. I think we need a modern repeat of World3, with detailed regional impact, and prepare agriculture which is low-nitrogen, low-pesticide and low-runoff in general, as well as looking into large scale algaculture for food production, and build up dry food stock. From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jan 21 21:19:36 2013 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:19:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Michael Nielsen contact info Message-ID: <004901cdf81d$03ec24c0$0bc46e40$@natasha.cc> Does anyone have Michael Nielsen's phone number or contact information? Thank you! Natasha Natasha Vita-More, PhD Professor, University of Advancing Technology From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jan 21 18:25:17 2013 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 11:25:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Michael Nielsen Message-ID: <008701cdf804$a9b15060$fd13f120$@natasha.cc> Does anyone have Michael Nielsen's phone number or contact information? Thank you! Natasha Natasha Vita-More, PhD esDESiGN_email Professor, University of Advancing Technology Chairman, Humanity+ Producer/Host, H+TV -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 5920 bytes Desc: not available URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Mon Jan 21 21:08:04 2013 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 14:08:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Michael Nielsen Message-ID: <002d01cdf81b$692f5ed0$3b8e1c70$@natasha.cc> Does anyone have Michael Nielsen's phone number or contact information? Thank you! Natasha Natasha Vita-More, PhD esDESiGN_email Professor, University of Advancing Technology -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 5920 bytes Desc: not available URL: From anders at aleph.se Mon Jan 21 22:27:56 2013 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 22:27:56 +0000 Subject: [ExI] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: References: <20130120152645.GF6172@leitl.org> <50FC6F88.1070606@aleph.se> <50FC8232.4040600@canonizer.com> Message-ID: <50FDC0EC.5040002@aleph.se> On 21/01/2013 04:57, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### It came as a surprise to me but recently I learned that the masses > are almost irrelevant to the direction that democratic societies take. > Murray's "Coming Apart", earlier Caplan's "Myth of the Rational > Voter", recently some articles quoted on Econlib, all these convinced > me that the roughly 90% of people who are not members of the broadly > defined elite are just tagging along for the ride. I always mention Hayek's "The intellectuals and socialism" at this point. In many ways this is not strange at all: influence is, like most social properties, skew-distributed (powerlaw-ish, I suppose). If you have a random social small-world network you should expect some nodes to be much more influential than the rest, even when there are no assortive or specialisation effects. If some people specialise in spouting off memes, the thing get even skewer. So make sure you convince them about your memes - if they are not incompatible with their normal memes they may now spread yours. Case in point: today I listened to the presentation of a new government report. We at FHI had written a report on the same topic earlier, and the team making this report had read ours. They did their own thing (less "high tech" in their words)... but some of the memes we brought in now permeate the other report, which of course has far, far greater weight than a mere FHI report. (The report and evidence base can be found at http://www.bis.gov.uk/foresight/our-work/policy-futures/identity for those who are interested. Foresight.uk do a lot of cool stuff, and today I learned how they are indirectly responsible for making cognitive enhancement a topic for polite conversation in the UK. ) -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Jan 22 01:05:14 2013 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 21 Jan 2013 17:05:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] breakout culture (Was: ambition) Message-ID: On Mon, Jan 21, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 20/01/2013 23:57, spike wrote: snip >> Why >> did the Europeans break out and invent stuff, but the native Americans >> generally did not? How does a society reach equilibrium, or >> technological stagnation? Can we even imagine reaching some kind of >> equilibrium now, short of a singularity? There were places in the Americas where fairly advanced metalworking was done. And places where there was a written language. > I think this is one of the big anthropological, sociological and > historical questions for our community. We think about this quite a lot > over at FHI, and usually wish there was an anthropologist in the house. snip > I am working on a paper on the Tasmanian technology trap: small > populations have a hard time maintaining a complex culture. (If you are > few, then the chance of losing the only guy with a certain skill is > pretty high) Too small and the whole population goes extinct. There were about 4000 Tasmanians. A similar cut off group of perhaps 700 didn't make it. On the other hand, Easter Island may have bottomed out at only 2000. > This is another factor that no doubt keeps many cultures > down. They are too few to develop and use certain technologies that > would allow them to gain the calories needed to grow to a larger group. > Yet this model mainly works on islands where there is a pretty fixed > limit: on mainlands it is enough that a single group gets large and > dense and things will happen. This is one popular explanation of the > Neolithic revolution, in fact. > > So in the end, I suspect that it is really down to ideas, culture and > memes. Most humans are conformists and happy to keep what they have. > Those few cultures that go for change are wildly unstable and mostly > fail. But occasionally, rarely, they form new kinds of dynamical equilibria. I have been talking about Dr Gregory Clark's ideas and research on this since late 2007. List membership has gone through a lot of change since the topic was last discussed. http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/2007-December/039363.html For those who don't want to use the link, Being much influenced by the concepts of evolutionary psychology, I have tended to discount the idea of humans being much shaped by recent evolution. Exceptions have been accumulating, the taming of wild foxes in as few as 8 generations, and the acquisition of genes (a number of them!) for adult lactose tolerance in peoples with a dairy culture. Yes, you can get serious population average shifts if the selection pressure is high enough. Now Dr. Gregory Clark, in one of those huge efforts that lead to breakthroughs, has produced a study that makes a strong case for recent (last few hundred years) and massive changes in population average psychological traits. It leaves in place that a huge part of our psychological traits did indeed come out of the stone age, but adds to that recent and very strong selection pressures on the population of settled agriculture societies in the "Malthusian trap." I came a bit late to this party, Dr. Clark's book _A Farewell to Alms_ peaked at 17 on Amazon's sales months ago. My copy has not come yet so I read this paper off his academic web site. http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/papers/Capitalism%20Genes.pdf "Genetically Capitalist? The Malthusian Era, Institutions and the Formation of Modern Preferences." There is lots of other material here: http://www.econ.ucdavis.edu/faculty/gclark/research.html but this paper is just stunning because of how much light it shines on a long list of mysteries. Such as: Why did the modern world grow out of a small part of Europe and why did it take so long? Why are the Chinese doing so well compared to say Africa? The upshot of his research was that in the Mathusian era in England people with the personality characteristics to become well off economically had at least twice as many surviving children as those in the lower economic classes--who were not replacing themselves. This, of course, led to "downward social mobility," where the numerous sons and daughters of the rich tended to be less well off (on average) than their parents. But over 20 generations (1200-1800) it did spread the genes for the personality characteristics for accumulating wealth through the entire population. "In the institutional and technological context of these societies, a new set of human attributes mattered for the only currency that mattered in the Malthusian era, which was reproductive success. In this world literacy and numeracy, which were irrelevant before, were both helpful for economic success in agrarian pre-industrial economies. Thus since economic success was linked to reproductive success, facility with numbers and wordswas pulled along in its wake. Since patience and hard work found a new reward in a society with large amounts of capital, patience and hard work were also favored." Fascinating work, memes that slot right in to the rest of my understanding of the world and the people in it. I very strongly recommend reading this paper at least. Keith Henson From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Tue Jan 22 14:51:11 2013 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 15:51:11 +0100 Subject: [ExI] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> <50FAA60B.70702@aleph.se> <50FBFEA0.2060900@aleph.se> Message-ID: On 21 January 2013 01:34, Tomasz Rola wrote: > BTW, another guy was Nicola Tesla. To me (perhaps I am misinformed) Tesla > was curious while Edison was ambitious. That Edison medal was awarded to > Tesla, rather than the other way is a (indirect and anecdotal) proof to > me, that there is something very uncivilish with this civilisation of > ours. This may well be a myth, and in any event I suspect that any age has had its fair share of misunderstood geniuses. My concern is whether our own age is going to produce the quantity of geniuses I would like, and/or whether they are in a position to do work bound to produce sooner or later the kind of dramatic breakthroughs we have become accustomed to. -- Stefano Vaj From scerir at alice.it Tue Jan 22 18:44:12 2013 From: scerir at alice.it (scerir) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 19:44:12 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Michael Nielsen contact info In-Reply-To: <004901cdf81d$03ec24c0$0bc46e40$@natasha.cc> References: <004901cdf81d$03ec24c0$0bc46e40$@natasha.cc> Message-ID: > Does anyone have Michael Nielsen's phone number or contact information? http://michaelnielsen.org/blog/michael-a-nielsen/ mn at michaelnielsen.org From anders at aleph.se Tue Jan 22 22:06:51 2013 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:06:51 +0000 Subject: [ExI] instilling ambition In-Reply-To: References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> <50FAA60B.70702@aleph.se> <50FBFEA0.2060900@aleph.se> Message-ID: <50FF0D7B.2060704@aleph.se> On 22/01/2013 14:51, Stefano Vaj wrote: > On 21 January 2013 01:34, Tomasz Rola wrote: >> BTW, another guy was Nicola Tesla. To me (perhaps I am misinformed) Tesla >> was curious while Edison was ambitious. That Edison medal was awarded to >> Tesla, rather than the other way is a (indirect and anecdotal) proof to >> me, that there is something very uncivilish with this civilisation of >> ours. > This may well be a myth, and in any event I suspect that any age has > had its fair share of misunderstood geniuses. I suspect that in nearly any civilisation Edison would have won over Tesla. Edisos would have been talking at the agora, swaying the Athenians with his plans while Tesles would have stayed away out of fear of clay shards, probably arguing with Aristotle about the nature of perception. Both were smart, but Edison had enough ruthlessness and entrepreneurship to get something, while Tesla's showmanship was not enough to overcome his personal quirks. > My concern is whether our own age is going to produce the quantity of > geniuses I would like, and/or whether they are in a position to do > work bound to produce sooner or later the kind of dramatic > breakthroughs we have become accustomed to. Charles Murray's mapping of genius in "Human Excellence" is interesting, since it suggests that the density of geniuses in time and space is highly variable. Understanding the processes leading to that would be quite helpful. I think some of the ideas proposed in the book sound a bit like the clustering of the creative class in Richard Florida's work. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Tue Jan 22 22:21:54 2013 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 22:21:54 +0000 Subject: [ExI] breakout culture (Was: ambition) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <50FF1102.2080908@aleph.se> On 22/01/2013 01:05, Keith Henson wrote: > There were places in the Americas where fairly advanced metalworking > was done. And places where there was a written language. But clearly metalworking and written language are not alone enough to trigger a technological revolution, or even anything like the classical Greek renaissance. I have long wondered about the size of the minimum group able to create an industrial revolution. We know it happened in England with around 7 million people, so that puts an upper limit to it. But most of these people were not directly involved (except as background consumers and producers, which are needed to some extent to get economies of scale). >> I am working on a paper on the Tasmanian technology trap: small >> populations have a hard time maintaining a complex culture. (If you are >> few, then the chance of losing the only guy with a certain skill is >> pretty high) > Too small and the whole population goes extinct. There were about > 4000 Tasmanians. A similar cut off group of perhaps 700 didn't make > it. On the other hand, Easter Island may have bottomed out at only > 2000. 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). It is worth remembering that there is an observation selection effect: in places where people died out a new population could move in and have another go, leaving us with some populations with unexpectedly (if one does not take this into account) small founder populations. > Now Dr. Gregory Clark, in one of those huge efforts that lead to > breakthroughs, has produced a study that makes a strong case for > recent (last few hundred years) and massive changes in population > average psychological traits. It leaves in place that a huge part of > our psychological traits did indeed come out of the stone age, but > adds to that recent and very strong selection pressures on the > population of settled agriculture societies in the "Malthusian trap." The problem with the model is that while it seems to work for England, it ought to work for a lot of other places too. We should be seeing these selection effects in nearly any society like that, and they should have shown up much earlier in places where the selection situation became similar earlier. > "In the institutional and technological context of these societies, > a new set of human attributes mattered for the only currency > that mattered in the Malthusian era, which was reproductive > success. In this world literacy and numeracy, which were irrelevant > before, were both helpful for economic success in agrarian > pre-industrial economies. Thus since economic success was > linked to reproductive success, facility with numbers and wordswas > pulled along in its wake. Since patience and hard work found > a new reward in a society with large amounts of capital, patience > and hard work were also favored." So we should expect to have seen this in China millennia earlier, right? It is still an interesting idea. We are probably selecting for a lot of unexpected things through the way we set up our societies. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University From max at maxmore.com Tue Jan 22 19:30:50 2013 From: max at maxmore.com (Max More) Date: Tue, 22 Jan 2013 12:30:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Michael Nielsen contact info In-Reply-To: References: <004901cdf81d$03ec24c0$0bc46e40$@natasha.cc> Message-ID: Michael did reply to our emails, so this issue is resolved. Thanks, --Max On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 11:44 AM, scerir wrote: > Does anyone have Michael Nielsen's phone number or contact information? >> > > http://michaelnielsen.org/**blog/michael-a-nielsen/ > > mn at michaelnielsen.org > > > ______________________________**_________________ > 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 hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Jan 23 14:51:08 2013 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 06:51:08 -0800 Subject: [ExI] breakout culture (Was: ambition) Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 23, 2013 at 4:00 AM, Anders Sandberg > wrote: > On 22/01/2013 01:05, Keith Henson wrote: >> There were places in the Americas where fairly advanced metalworking >> was done. And places where there was a written language. > But clearly metalworking and written language are not alone enough to > trigger a technological revolution, or even anything like the classical > Greek renaissance. Who knows where they would have gone in another few thousand years. > I have long wondered about the size of the minimum group able to create > an industrial revolution. We know it happened in England with around 7 > million people, so that puts an upper limit to it. But most of these > people were not directly involved (except as background consumers and > producers, which are needed to some extent to get economies of scale). Populations much larger than 7 million had existed for some time in other places such as China and India. >>> I am working on a paper on the Tasmanian technology trap: small >>> populations have a hard time maintaining a complex culture. (If you are >>> few, then the chance of losing the only guy with a certain skill is >>> pretty high) >> Too small and the whole population goes extinct. There were about >> 4000 Tasmanians. A similar cut off group of perhaps 700 didn't make >> it. On the other hand, Easter Island may have bottomed out at only >> 2000. > > 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). Shifting climatic conditions wiped out many substantial groups in the eras previous to the transport era where it was possible to ship in food to starving people. > It is worth remembering that there is an observation selection effect: > in places where people died out a new population could move in and have > another go, leaving us with some populations with unexpectedly (if one > does not take this into account) small founder populations. > > >> Now Dr. Gregory Clark, in one of those huge efforts that lead to >> breakthroughs, has produced a study that makes a strong case for >> recent (last few hundred years) and massive changes in population >> average psychological traits. It leaves in place that a huge part of >> our psychological traits did indeed come out of the stone age, but >> adds to that recent and very strong selection pressures on the >> population of settled agriculture societies in the "Malthusian trap." > > The problem with the model is that while it seems to work for England, > it ought to work for a lot of other places too. We should be seeing > these selection effects in nearly any society like that, and they should > have shown up much earlier in places where the selection situation > became similar earlier. Clark makes the case that we do see the selection effects. Places that have had this kind of selection are ones where the industrial way of life is easy to transplant. Japan and China come to mind. As to why the industrial revolution didn't happen there first, Clark goes into some really gross details, like basements full of shit. >> "In the institutional and technological context of these societies, >> a new set of human attributes mattered for the only currency >> that mattered in the Malthusian era, which was reproductive >> success. In this world literacy and numeracy, which were irrelevant >> before, were both helpful for economic success in agrarian >> pre-industrial economies. Thus since economic success was >> linked to reproductive success, facility with numbers and wordswas >> pulled along in its wake. Since patience and hard work found >> a new reward in a society with large amounts of capital, patience >> and hard work were also favored." > > So we should expect to have seen this in China millennia earlier, right? It almost did if you read into China's technological history. As to why it didn't, Clark goes into a great deal of detailed explanation/speculation. It's very much worthwhile to read "Farewell to Alms" and the papers on his web site. > It is still an interesting idea. We are probably selecting for a lot of > unexpected things through the way we set up our societies. True. There used to be a stronger inter generational filter on new mutations. (Most are harmful.) Keith From clementlawyer at gmail.com Wed Jan 23 19:41:29 2013 From: clementlawyer at gmail.com (James Clement) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 14:41:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Chinese-made unmanned vehicle passes freeway test Message-ID: http://www.china.org.cn/china/2013-01/23/content_27773068.htm Chinese-made unmanned vehicle passes freeway test An unmanned vehicle designed by Military Transportation University of the PLA (MTU) recently won top prize in the fourth Future Challenge, a contest for intelligent vehicles. [image: Unmanned military vehicle passes freeway test.[File photo]] Unmanned military vehicle passes freeway test.[File photo] The vehicle, a third generation prototype named "Fierce Lion 3", completed a 114-kilometer journey within 85 minutes, with a top speed of 105 kilometers per hour, making itself China's first unmanned vehicle to pass a freeway test. Third party certification agencies, including National Natural Science Foundation and Beijing Institute of Technology deemed that the vehicle had successfully completed the journey with no human intervention, and its technology had reached a world-class standard. Fierce Lion 3 was directed to complete a wide range of maneuvers on the freeway, including cruising in one lane, following traffic, changing lanes, passing slower traffic, and responding to human instructions. The vehicle is equipped with an override system to allow human intervention, to prevent the vehicle from causing damage to the passengers or other vehicles in case of emergency. The in-car computer system controlled the entire journey, including acceleration, braking, passing, and pulling up. The researchers did nothing but set the vehicle's destination coordinates. During the trip, Fierce Lion 3 passed slower traffic 33 times. The autopilot system even once refrained from making a pass after the radar detected the rear traffic was coming in at too fast a speed to make the maneuver safe. Observers said they saw the vehicle darting away, "as if an experienced driver was holding the wheel." The vehicle was equipped with radars, video cameras and a sat-nav device that provided visual for the car. Three cameras monitored the front and side traffic, sending lane marks and buffer zone visuals to the computer. The radars detected the distance between the car bumper and the front traffic, advising the computer either to accelerate or to slow down. Three computers, including one for backup use, analyze all information and control the mechanical system similar to a passenger jet's fly-by-wire avionics. A professor from the MTU, Xu Youchun, said computer-controlled driving is safer, as maneuvers are more precise and road rage is eliminated. He said the computer strictly ensures a safe braking distance of 100 meters. In total, MTU's unmanned intelligent vehicles have registered over 10,000 kilometers of test drives. The cars' performance has been stable on both urban streets and rural roads. Regarding the future application of unmanned vehicles, automation expert Zheng Nanning, member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, said such technology could save manpower in military logistics. A transport convoy would only require one driver to lead the group. Also, in civilian use, an unmanned vehicle could take over the vehicle to reduce driver fatigue and allow the drive to doze off safely. If connected to the Internet and cloud system, an in-car system could optimize directions. Eventually, Zheng said, unmanned city buses will be possible. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Jan 24 05:26:14 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 23 Jan 2013 21:26:14 -0800 Subject: [ExI] scaling global warming Message-ID: <000501cdf9f3$545aac10$fd100430$@att.net> A thought occurred to me today as I was reading about a deep lingering cold snap in upstate New York. We discuss the notion of global warming, which is based on an average temperature over the year. But the thermometers are not evenly distributed. They are generally more concentrated near population centers. But it is entirely likely that the concentration factor is insufficient: the distribution of thermometers should be proportioned according to the local human population. Reasoning: I have a correspondent who lives in upstate NY, who told me of the terribly cold weather they have been having, very unusually cold. I pointed out that they are singlehandedly rescuing the planet from global warming by lowering the average temperature. But the number of data entries into the temperature average may be inappropriately high for that sparsely populated area. If we scaled it according to population density, then most of the climate stations in New York State would be located in New York City and the surrounding areas, with rural upstate NY being nearly irrelevant in the average temperature. It just doesn't feel right to me that a few people upstate could be saving the world from global warming without even very much overall suffering. The nearly deserted Wyoming gets as much data into the average as down here on the California coast where there are so many proles per square kilometer. It just doesn't seem fair somehow. More people should equal more data in the global average temperature. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Thu Jan 24 20:53:08 2013 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 24 Jan 2013 20:53:08 +0000 Subject: [ExI] scaling global warming In-Reply-To: <000501cdf9f3$545aac10$fd100430$@att.net> References: <000501cdf9f3$545aac10$fd100430$@att.net> Message-ID: <51019F34.1090104@aleph.se> On 24/01/2013 05:26, spike wrote: > > A thought occurred to me today as I was reading about a deep lingering > cold snap in upstate New York. We discuss the notion of global > warming, which is based on an average temperature over the year. But > the thermometers are not evenly distributed. They are generally more > concentrated near population centers. But it is entirely likely that > the concentration factor is insufficient: the distribution of > thermometers should be proportioned according to the local human > population. > The unequal distribution of temperature stations in time and space is a big headache for climate modelling. You need to be very careful in interpreting measurements because of it. I had great fun playing around with the Met office climate data a few years back: http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2009/12/digging_into_data.html http://www.aleph.se/andart/archives/2009/12/significant_anomalies.html The concentration near population centres also means the urban heat island effect must be controlled for, both in time and space - the extra thermometers do not necessarily contribute quality data. It is hard and tricky work. > It just doesn't seem fair somehow. More people should equal more > data in the global average temperature. > > No, it should mean more weight in evaluating how good or bad it was. Multiply the local change with population density and you get a better measure. Suppose all global warming happened in Topeka, Kansas. About 127,000 people would be affected, but the rest of the world would be fine (and the topekans could move from their boiling city): it would essentially be no difference. The big temperature increases in the far north right now are not so bad for humans since nearly nobody lives above the polar circle - if their effects remained local they would only be a concern in regards to local ecosystems and economic exploitability. However, the feedback effects are worth watching for - they are not well understood yet, but potentially important for weather and climate patterns across the industrialized - and densely populated - north. And anything that messes up the Monsoons is Bad News. Generally, scaling importance with population affected seems to be a good heuristic for setting priorities. -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jan 25 18:52:41 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 10:52:41 -0800 Subject: [ExI] alcor in the news Message-ID: <001e01cdfb2d$280811d0$78183570$@att.net> Alcor makes it in the mainstream news with a neutral to mildly positive treatment: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/01/25/woman-freezes-her-brain-hopes-to-be -reborn-once-brain-cancer-cure-found/?test=latestnews spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Fri Jan 25 18:13:33 2013 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:13:33 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <002e01cdf78c$0c61f1c0$2525d540$@att.net> References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> <20130120211458.GF6172@leitl.org> <002e01cdf78c$0c61f1c0$2525d540$@att.net> Message-ID: On 21 January 2013 05:01, spike wrote: > The article has the ring of truth to it from my own experience. I talk to > teenagers whenever I get a chance, and I have noted a remarkable > characteristic of the Y generation: as a group they don't seem to give a > damn about cars, and don't seem to have much of an appetite for high end > consumer stuff. Interesting. I have almost entirely lost myself the lust for super cars, or even super PCs for that matter. One reason may be that that diversity and breakthroughs are much a thing of the past. But there might be other subtler cultural reasons, not all of them benign... As to the copulation drive, much here has to do with status symbols and peer admiration. All this - in the West - has less and to do with hard, powerful, real-world tech, in favour of simulacrum. -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jan 25 21:26:21 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 13:26:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> <20130120211458.GF6172@leitl.org> <002e01cdf78c$0c61f1c0$2525d540$@att.net> Message-ID: <006a01cdfb42$9f174c90$dd45e5b0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stefano Vaj Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 10:14 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 On 21 January 2013 05:01, spike wrote: >>. I talk to teenagers whenever I get a chance, and I have noted a remarkable characteristic of the Y generation: as a group they don't seem to give a damn about cars. >.Interesting. I have almost entirely lost myself the lust for super cars. Ja me too Stefano. Geezer. {8^D >. or even super PCs for that matter. Pal you and I are old enough to remember when PC's weren't super and weren't powerful. The contrast between our misspent youth and now is stunning. Ain't life grand? The young people present don't know our suffering, the days of pre-gigahertz processors for instance. They don't know how we struggled with finding suitable partners for copulation. They just get online, type in their particular kinks and preferences, and BOOM, list of available local comely lasses, ready to. um. chat online about. the kinds of things we used to. um. well, dream about. >.As to the copulation drive, much here has to do with status symbols and peer admiration. Hmmm, for you perhaps. I was always a geek, so status symbols were useless and wasted on me, and peer admiration was out of the question. Life is so much better for nerds today. They have Gates, Wozniak and Jobs to thank for making geek chic. >. All this - in the West - has less and to do with hard, powerful, real-world tech, in favour of simulacrum. -- Stefano Vaj Final thought on that. There are in this life some things that really are better than sex. I wouldn't trade my computer for it for instance. Back in November when I was temporarily without internet, I really suffered. It was only five days, but it was harder than being without sex for five weeks. I really missed it, and even then, the computer itself was still perfectly functional. So I wrote a lot of software and such, but it just wasn't the same without a connection to the real world. Stefano, I like that description of yours, that hard, powerful real-world tech. Nice adjectives! It just sounds sexy. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Sat Jan 26 04:26:26 2013 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 21:26:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] alcor in the news In-Reply-To: <001e01cdfb2d$280811d0$78183570$@att.net> References: <001e01cdfb2d$280811d0$78183570$@att.net> Message-ID: <000301cdfb7d$4ed443b0$ec7ccb10$@natasha.cc> Great. I look forward to reading this! Natasha Vita-More, PhD esDESiGN_email Professor, University of Advancing Technology Chairman, Humanity+ Producer/Host, H+TV From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 11:53 AM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: [ExI] alcor in the news Alcor makes it in the mainstream news with a neutral to mildly positive treatment: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/01/25/woman-freezes-her-brain-hopes-to-be -reborn-once-brain-cancer-cure-found/?test=latestnews spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: image/png Size: 5920 bytes Desc: not available URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Jan 26 04:48:07 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 20:48:07 -0800 Subject: [ExI] alcor in the news In-Reply-To: <000301cdfb7d$4ed443b0$ec7ccb10$@natasha.cc> References: <001e01cdfb2d$280811d0$78183570$@att.net> <000301cdfb7d$4ed443b0$ec7ccb10$@natasha.cc> Message-ID: <003401cdfb80$565acf70$03106e50$@att.net> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Natasha Vita-More Sent: Friday, January 25, 2013 8:26 PM To: 'ExI chat list' Subject: Re: [ExI] alcor in the news Great. I look forward to reading this! Natasha Vita-More, PhD esDESiGN_email Professor, University of Advancing Technology Chairman, Humanity+ Producer/Host, H+TV This is the video version of the story: http://fox2now.com/2013/01/23/st-louis-woman-freezes-head-hopes-for-cancer-c ure/?hpt=us_bn9 spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5920 bytes Desc: not available URL: From gsantostasi at gmail.com Sat Jan 26 05:12:04 2013 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 23:12:04 -0600 Subject: [ExI] alcor in the news In-Reply-To: <003401cdfb80$565acf70$03106e50$@att.net> References: <001e01cdfb2d$280811d0$78183570$@att.net> <000301cdfb7d$4ed443b0$ec7ccb10$@natasha.cc> <003401cdfb80$565acf70$03106e50$@att.net> Message-ID: Guys, please go to this site and similar ones. There are several good articles on Kim Suozi, the comments are a good place to interact with the general public commenting on this topic. If you are involved with cryonics please engage the people that are commenting by educating them, informing them and pointing to them SENS, the Alcor site and other life extension resources. I already started to reply to positive and negative comments, some people have no clue about cryonics and others want more information. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/22/kim-suozzi-cryogenicallly-prese rved-cancer_n_2526415.html Giovanni On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 10:48 PM, spike wrote: > ** ** > > ** ** > > *From:* extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto: > extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On Behalf Of *Natasha Vita-More > *Sent:* Friday, January 25, 2013 8:26 PM > *To:* 'ExI chat list' > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] alcor in the news**** > > ** ** > > Great. I look forward to reading this!**** > > ** ** > > Natasha Vita-More, PhD **** > > [image: esDESiGN_email]**** > > *Professor, University of Advancing Technology* > > *Chairman, Humanity+ > Producer/Host, H+TV * > > * * > > * * > > * * > > This is the video version of the story:**** > > * * > > * > http://fox2now.com/2013/01/23/st-louis-woman-freezes-head-hopes-for-cancer-cure/?hpt=us_bn9 > * > > * * > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.png Type: application/octet-stream Size: 5920 bytes Desc: not available URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jan 25 22:37:25 2013 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 22:37:25 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <006a01cdfb42$9f174c90$dd45e5b0$@att.net> References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> <20130120211458.GF6172@leitl.org> <002e01cdf78c$0c61f1c0$2525d540$@att.net> <006a01cdfb42$9f174c90$dd45e5b0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jan 25, 2013 at 9:26 PM, spike wrote: > Pal you and I are old enough to remember when PC?s weren?t super and weren?t > powerful. The contrast between our misspent youth and now is stunning. > Ain?t life grand? The young people present don?t know our suffering, the > days of pre-gigahertz processors for instance. Ohhhh, you had it so eeeeasssy! I remember splicing reels of paper tape together, sticking patches on and repunching individual characters. Those were the days. When we progressed to boxes of punched cards it was sheer luxury. :) BillK From test at ssec.wisc.edu Sat Jan 26 15:26:04 2013 From: test at ssec.wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard) Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 09:26:04 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ExI] Ray Kurzweil interview in tommorrow's NY Times magazine Message-ID: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/27/magazine/ray-kurzweil-says-were-going-to-live-forever.html From stefano.vaj at gmail.com Sun Jan 27 16:28:32 2013 From: stefano.vaj at gmail.com (Stefano Vaj) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 17:28:32 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Wind, solar could provide 99.9% of ALL POWER by 2030 In-Reply-To: <006a01cdfb42$9f174c90$dd45e5b0$@att.net> References: <20130118101001.GZ6172@leitl.org> <20130118123549.GI6172@leitl.org> <004001cdf592$1ed135b0$5c73a110$@att.net> <006601cdf608$8b9a7820$a2cf6860$@att.net> <20130120211458.GF6172@leitl.org> <002e01cdf78c$0c61f1c0$2525d540$@att.net> <006a01cdfb42$9f174c90$dd45e5b0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 25 January 2013 22:26, spike wrote: > Pal you and I are old enough to remember when PC?s weren?t super and > weren?t powerful. The contrast between our misspent youth and now is > stunning. Ain?t life grand? The young people present don?t know our > suffering, the days of pre-gigahertz processors for instance. They don?t > know how we struggled with finding suitable partners for copulation. They > just get online, type in their particular kinks and preferences, and BOOM, > list of available local comely lasses, ready to? um? chat online about? the > kinds of things we used to? um? well, dream about. > Of course anything you can get nowadays is much better than what we had, and often of something I still have but have no time to replace with all its nice data and configuring and still Just Works. But I remember a time when I could not wait for and derived sheer pleasure from getting my hands on the Last and Best in terms of computing and showing it off. Same as getting a Lamborghini - which fewer of us could afford, btw. :-) Today, well, an i7 with 32 GB Ram and a state-of-the-art graphic card? Yawn. Any casual box serves me equally well. One attitude which used to be rather the province of my female friends and colleagues... -- Stefano Vaj -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From ablainey at aol.com Sun Jan 27 20:12:39 2013 From: ablainey at aol.com (ablainey at aol.com) Date: Sun, 27 Jan 2013 15:12:39 -0500 (EST) Subject: [ExI] alcor in the news In-Reply-To: <001e01cdfb2d$280811d0$78183570$@att.net> References: <001e01cdfb2d$280811d0$78183570$@att.net> Message-ID: <8CFCAE1CA04134D-3038-2A707@webmail-m040.sysops.aol.com> Not a bad piece of journo work. Better than usual but you can bet the tone would different if it was Bill Gates or somesuch being put on ice. Out of interest what is the going rate for Head cryo? Is Alcor UK still operational? Why doesnt Alcor offer a service of ....hold on i'll run that idea past Max first ;o) -----Original Message----- From: spike To: 'ExI chat list' Sent: Fri, 25 Jan 2013 19:16 Subject: [ExI] alcor in the news Alcor makes it in the mainstream news with a neutral to mildly positive treatment: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/01/25/woman-freezes-her-brain-hopes-to-be-reborn-once-brain-cancer-cure-found/?test=latestnews spike _______________________________________________ extropy-chat mailing list extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Jan 29 18:32:37 2013 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:32:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Happy Birthday Max! Message-ID: <000601cdfe4f$03812840$0a8378c0$@natasha.cc> (psst . its another onward, upward, forward, outward for Max!) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Tue Jan 29 16:08:06 2013 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 09:08:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Happy Birthday Max! Message-ID: <000001cdfe3a$d5b3efb0$811bcf10$@natasha.cc> As you so compellingly say, "Onward!" Natasha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Jan 29 19:20:49 2013 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 11:20:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Happy Birthday Max! In-Reply-To: <000601cdfe4f$03812840$0a8378c0$@natasha.cc> References: <000601cdfe4f$03812840$0a8378c0$@natasha.cc> Message-ID: But hopefully not too "outward", if you know what I mean. Not so conducive to perpetual onward, it is. ;) Seriously, though, happy birthday man! On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Natasha Vita-More wrote: > > > (psst ? its another onward, upward, forward, outward for Max!) > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com Tue Jan 29 21:52:33 2013 From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 14:52:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Happy Birthday Max! In-Reply-To: References: <000601cdfe4f$03812840$0a8378c0$@natasha.cc> Message-ID: Max, HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!! And may you have at least 1,000 more! : ) Warm wishes, John On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > But hopefully not too "outward", if you know what I mean. > Not so conducive to perpetual onward, it is. ;) > > Seriously, though, happy birthday man! > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Natasha Vita-More > wrote: > > > > > > (psst ? its another onward, upward, forward, outward for Max!) > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Wed Jan 30 00:00:56 2013 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 00:00:56 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Happy Birthday Max! In-Reply-To: <000001cdfe3a$d5b3efb0$811bcf10$@natasha.cc> References: <000001cdfe3a$d5b3efb0$811bcf10$@natasha.cc> Message-ID: <510862B8.90504@aleph.se> Ever onward! -- Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Faculty of Philosophy Oxford University From rtomek at ceti.pl Wed Jan 30 00:38:01 2013 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 01:38:01 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] Happy Birthday Max! In-Reply-To: References: <000601cdfe4f$03812840$0a8378c0$@natasha.cc> Message-ID: On Tue, 29 Jan 2013, John Grigg wrote: > Max, HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!! And may you have at least 1,000 more! : ) > > > Warm wishes, > > > John > > On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 12:20 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > > But hopefully not too "outward", if you know what I mean. > > Not so conducive to perpetual onward, it is. ;) > > > > Seriously, though, happy birthday man! Yes, Happy Birthday to you. Kindly 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 mbb386 at main.nc.us Wed Jan 30 02:32:18 2013 From: mbb386 at main.nc.us (MB) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 21:32:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Happy Birthday Max! In-Reply-To: References: <000601cdfe4f$03812840$0a8378c0$@natasha.cc> Message-ID: <382c0dee19e4e2642ca08fcbebb434c5.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Happy Birthday to Max, and many happy returns! :) Regards, MB From gsantostasi at gmail.com Wed Jan 30 04:01:19 2013 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:01:19 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Happy Birthday Max! In-Reply-To: <382c0dee19e4e2642ca08fcbebb434c5.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> References: <000601cdfe4f$03812840$0a8378c0$@natasha.cc> <382c0dee19e4e2642ca08fcbebb434c5.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: Happy Birthday, Buon Compleanno. Thank you for your leadership and inspiration. Giovanni On Tue, Jan 29, 2013 at 8:32 PM, MB wrote: > Happy Birthday to Max, and many happy returns! :) > > Regards, > MB > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Jan 30 06:12:06 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 29 Jan 2013 22:12:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Happy Birthday Max! In-Reply-To: References: <000601cdfe4f$03812840$0a8378c0$@natasha.cc> <382c0dee19e4e2642ca08fcbebb434c5.squirrel@www.main.nc.us> Message-ID: <00a901cdfeb0$bb58a360$3209ea20$@att.net> Max best wishes for this happy occasion and for many more years to come. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com Wed Jan 30 12:58:34 2013 From: avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com (The Avantguardian) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 04:58:34 -0800 (PST) Subject: [ExI] Happy Birthday Max! In-Reply-To: <000601cdfe4f$03812840$0a8378c0$@natasha.cc> References: <000601cdfe4f$03812840$0a8378c0$@natasha.cc> Message-ID: <1359550714.76557.YahooMailNeo@web160506.mail.bf1.yahoo.com> Congratulations on completing another successful?lap around the sun. May you?do many more. ? Stuart LaForge ? ?The future starts today, not tomorrow.?- Karol J?zef Wojtyla From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Jan 31 02:14:07 2013 From: natasha at natasha.cc (Natasha Vita-More) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 19:14:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Field of HCI Message-ID: <01a001cdff58$a68c4d30$f3a4e790$@natasha.cc> Human-computer interaction is one field I am teaching two classes in (theory and prototyping) and I'd like to ask you all for any insights, suggestions, latest theories, methods, etc. that would be helpful to these undergrad students who want to their work at a master's level. Most of these students are working in HCI areas of apps, gaming, video, and interface design, 3D modeling, etc. They have a very weak theoretical background, but they are anxious to learn. If anyone has taught HCI at the undergrad or grad level, please let me know. And if you have not but can offer insights and suggestions, that would be much appreciated! Thank you, Natasha -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Jan 31 02:56:41 2013 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 30 Jan 2013 21:56:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Field of HCI In-Reply-To: <01a001cdff58$a68c4d30$f3a4e790$@natasha.cc> References: <01a001cdff58$a68c4d30$f3a4e790$@natasha.cc> Message-ID: On Wed, Jan 30, 2013 at 9:14 PM, 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. > > Most of these students are working in HCI areas of apps, gaming, video, and > interface design, 3D modeling, etc. They have a very weak theoretical > background, but they are anxious to learn. > > If anyone has taught HCI at the undergrad or grad level, please let me know. > And if you have not but can offer insights and suggestions, that would be > much appreciated! My introduction to HCI was taught with an accompanying text "The Design of Everyday Things" (Donald Norman). We were advised that it was a bit dated, but that (imo) helped me see 'affordance' outside the context of computer interfaces and instead examine real objects. Since humans evolved in the real world, our brains expect objects to act according to principles that don't necessarily exist in the software world. Without those grounding principles it's very easy to make a mess of UI. In short, I thought it was exceptionally helpful to understand how and why ease-of-use (in physical/functional form and corresponding mental models) can be translated to HCI It was so effective that I can't see a door marked "push" with a pull-handle and not immediately assume the designer of the door was a complete failure. I have also adopted the philosophy (and have been teaching it to jr. developers) that "user error" the IT nerds like to make fun of should really be viewed as design failures. Failures on the part of those IT nerds for not delivering a product with natural constraints which result in proper usage rather than horrible HCI that encourages users to create problems. While true, it's also a good way to remind devs to stop complaining about users and get back to work fixing the HCI mistakes their customers have identified for them. :) I also had the thought that when tool-making tools are built, they'll need some governing rules about how humans consume contextual clues and discover functionality in the UI - else AI & makerbots could implement interfaces that humans are literally incapable of using. In this context I'll also share this funny anecdote: I consider myself fairly adept at using computer interfaces (30 years=plenty of practice) yet my first experience with an Apple iMac was a disaster. I understand Apple is all about appealing, modern design, etc. I assumed hitting any key would wake the computer from standby; it didn't. I found myself pushing the Apple logo on the face of the monitor; didn't work. I performed various permutations of the three-fingered salute; also failed. I absolutely hated the helpless feeling of failure to do something as basic as turn on the machine. Having had the HCI class, however, I recognized that failure more-appropriately lies with the Apple designer who (apparently) thought buttons are ugly, so should be hidden on the back of the monitor. Not only should they be hidden from view, but that they should also have nearly zero tactile indication of their presence - so after being told the power button is on the back I still couldn't find it by sliding my hand around the edges or feeling for it where the power button is on my LCD TV. Despite the other ways Apple can legitimately claim their products are "easy to use" my expectation for easy was not met by the obfuscation of the simplest "On" feature. HCI is really interesting. Please do share here anything you/your students discover. From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jan 31 10:23:00 2013 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 10:23:00 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Politicians made to stop lying? Message-ID: Realtime Political Fact-Checking Becomes A Reality With WaPo?s ?Truth Teller? Today, exclusively with TechCrunch, The Washington Post has announced a fully automated fact-checking program, Truth Teller, that displays ?TRUE? or ?FALSE? in real time next to video of politicians and pundits as they speak. Eventually, The Washington Post?s digital team hopes that Truth Teller can automatically draw from wisdom of the entire Internet and be available for citizens on their smartphones to fact-check politicians as they hold backyard BBQs during campaign season. The reality is, The Washington Post?s project takes us one step closer to a place where democracy has never been. It could very well have profound effects on the most malicious rumors that feed an ever-increasingly partisan political discourse. The upside to a major news network such as Fox or CNN implementing a polished version of Truth Teller is probably well worth the risk. ------------------- Sounds like a good idea. Though the article makes the point that 'truth' in complex situations depends on the spin that is applied. So the project may be (at first) limited to more black and white lies. Though even this will be an improvement. If they manage to extend the reach of the project, then it could be applied to virtually all environments, not just politics. So when you hear the latest urban legend that happened to a friend of a friend, your smartphone immediately flags it as 'FALSE'. And what if girls start fact-checking the lines fed to them by eager males???? ;) BillK From spike66 at att.net Thu Jan 31 14:35:06 2013 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 06:35:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Politicians made to stop lying? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <010701cdffc0$2a897e70$7f9c7b50$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK ... >...If they manage to extend the reach of the project, then it could be applied to virtually all environments, not just politics. So when you hear the latest urban legend that happened to a friend of a friend, your smartphone immediately flags it as 'FALSE'. And what if girls start fact-checking the lines fed to them by eager males???? ;) BillK _______________________________________________ BillK, think that one over carefully. In the mating game, imagine what happens when either player is subjected to this device? In that complex human endeavor, both participants want to hear lies, even if they know they are being lied to. I can imagine a great Saturday Night Live skit on this. Young couple, making the usual pre-copulation banter, while testing the new Truth-O-Matic. Every time either tells a lie (bzzzt) the partner is pleased, but every truth (ding!) produces only annoyance. If you think about it, that would pretty much be the way it is, ja? Teenagers get confused when their opposite gender counterparts tell them the actual truth. They don't recognize it because they don't know what actual truth sounds like. They've never heard it. spike From rtomek at ceti.pl Thu Jan 31 16:24:20 2013 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 17:24:20 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] Politicians made to stop lying? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, 31 Jan 2013, BillK wrote: > Realtime Political Fact-Checking Becomes A Reality With WaPo's 'Truth > Teller' > > Today, exclusively with TechCrunch, The Washington Post has announced a > fully automated fact-checking program, Truth Teller, that displays > "TRUE" or "FALSE" in real time next to video of politicians and pundits > as they speak. > Eventually, The Washington Post's digital team hopes that Truth Teller > can automatically draw from wisdom of the entire Internet and be > available for citizens on their smartphones to fact-check politicians as > they hold backyard BBQs during campaign season. Oh, BillK, you are a bad man. These are fundamentals of our civilization: 1. A whore will try to steal your wallet [1] 2. A priest will try to persuade you that God wants your money (but you may keep a wallet, for a while at least) 3. A politician will try to lie you into doing things you would never do if you got a chance to think on your own (they never say a word about your money or wallet but chances are, you loose both and land your face into pile of horse dung as a bonus) Once you undermine any of these fundamentals, we all go to the dark side. Because right now we are on a bright side. And we will defend it. This machine has to go away. [1] Of all three oldest professions, I revere whores the most, because at least they work. > The reality is, The Washington Post's project takes us one step closer > to a place where democracy has never been. It could very well have > profound effects on the most malicious rumors that feed an > ever-increasingly partisan political discourse. The upside to a major > news network such as Fox or CNN implementing a polished version of Truth > Teller is probably well worth the risk. Um, I beg to differ. Either one has TT in ones head or one is already sold out to whoever paid more. You know that TT will work wonders on commercials - all true, sir. Some may think that there are places in a world where people would know better. But I don't see it to be so. > And what if girls start fact-checking the lines fed to them by eager > males???? ;) They already do. But things that people say don't have as much importance as geeks would like to think they have. In case of mating, I'd say words are a decoration on a cake. Actually, it's not only mating. To make it short, neither truth nor logic matters. This TT will be either fancy toy or commercial aid. If you think otherwise, then you are a geek and your only friends are boring eggheads mumbling uncomprehensively about "theory this" or "experiment that". Ok, now I have to mumble a bit. 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 Thu Jan 31 21:58:46 2013 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2013 22:58:46 +0100 (CET) Subject: [ExI] breakout culture (Was: ambition) In-Reply-To: <50FF1102.2080908@aleph.se> References: <50FF1102.2080908@aleph.se> Message-ID: 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. [ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncontacted_peoples ] Of those, the Sentinelese (some 250+ people) are probably the most isolated, living on their island since maybe more than few thousands years. They don't know boats, so either they forgot them or they never used them and became stranded when sea level rose up. But it's hard to say for sure if they were equally isolated all the time. 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 **