From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 01:03:07 2014
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Sun, 31 Aug 2014 18:03:07 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Hal Finney being cryopreserved now
In-Reply-To: <049b01cfc391$f04ff580$d0efe080$@att.net>
References: <CAJX-7wUmzAiJiDse84-Vb-G0TuYm9kCW41ssvX48tFFFeq8e1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKTCJydjTuTcJ9ZQxxtFvgMUL7Cpp0uspxVhf8AxSwpUWhE-wQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <049b01cfc391$f04ff580$d0efe080$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAGSKFy2p58im+wbHbQdbDXT0wodqoWUMZjQURtyKHPh=838Q7g@mail.gmail.com>

I was shocked when I first learned of Hal's ALS and how it so quickly
crippled him.  I had met him very briefly at a transhumanist conference
years ago, but unfortunately never got to know him well.  I have a sense of
relief now at what happened with his deanimation, and am happy to know his
suspension went smoothly.

I assume you are all aware of this WIRED article, but in case you are
not....

http://www.wired.com/2014/08/hal-finney/?mbid=social_fb


John




On Fri, Aug 29, 2014 at 7:02 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> >... On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Hal Finney being cryopreserved now
>
> >...This is vary sad... please invite me to Hal's revival party, I want to
> shake his hand.
>
> >...Please share the press release when it's issued, it should be posted
> also to the Bitcoin Forums and covered by Bitcoin news...
>
>
>
> There was some interesting discussion on Hacker News of Hal and cryonics.
> Jan Klauck sent this:
>
> https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8239129
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140831/abae2480/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon Sep  1 13:56:58 2014
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 1 Sep 2014 09:56:58 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Hal Finney being cryopreserved now
In-Reply-To: <CAGSKFy2p58im+wbHbQdbDXT0wodqoWUMZjQURtyKHPh=838Q7g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wUmzAiJiDse84-Vb-G0TuYm9kCW41ssvX48tFFFeq8e1Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKTCJydjTuTcJ9ZQxxtFvgMUL7Cpp0uspxVhf8AxSwpUWhE-wQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <049b01cfc391$f04ff580$d0efe080$@att.net>
 <CAGSKFy2p58im+wbHbQdbDXT0wodqoWUMZjQURtyKHPh=838Q7g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2NjQd+JDcfoMdXDvajR7JzaJgeKC-SZLM6gQuE9pgiaw@mail.gmail.com>

The following obituary of Hal was on page A15 ot today's New York Times:
=========

Hal Finney, a cryptographer and one of the earliest users and developers of
the virtual currency Bitcoin, died on Thursday in Phoenix. He was 58.

Mr. Finney had been paralyzed by amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, or A.L.S.,
and was taken off life support at Paradise Valley Hospital, his wife, Fran
Finney, said. She said his body was immediately prepared for cryonic
preservation by the Alcor Life Extension Foundation in Scottsdale, Ariz.,
according to his wishes.

A graduate of the California Institute of Technology, Mr. Finney was a
longtime futurist who put his programming skills to work in the service of
his ideals, particularly his desire to see the privacy of individuals
protected.

In 1991, he began doing volunteer work for a new software project known as
Pretty Good Privacy, or P.G.P., and immediately became one of the central
players in developing the program. P.G.P. aimed to make it possible for
people everywhere to encrypt electronic communication in a way that could
not be read by anyone other than the intended recipient. The program used
relatively new innovations in encryption that are still thought to be
invulnerable to code breakers.

Mr. Finney wrote in 1992 that cryptographic technology appealed to him
because he worried about the ability of corporations and governments to
snoop on citizens.

?The work we are doing here, broadly speaking, is dedicated to this goal of
making Big Brother obsolete,? he wrote to an online group of fellow privacy
activists.

The original author of P.G.P., Philip R. Zimmermann, quickly became the
target of federal prosecutors, who believed that the software broke United
States laws against exporting military-grade encryption software.

While the investigation went on and became a major cause for civil
libertarians, Mr. Finney played a more quiet role in P.G.P. to avoid
becoming a target himself. Mr. Zimmermann said in an interview that this
decision meant Mr. Finney did not get proper credit for some of the
important innovations he had made in the development of P.G.P.

When the investigation concluded in 1996 without any charges being filed,
P.G.P. became a company, and Mr. Zimmermann set out to hire Mr. Finney as
his first employee.

Mr. Zimmermann, in an interview before Mr. Finney died, said Mr. Finney was
unusual in the field because he had none of the asocial tendencies and
physical awkwardness that are commonly associated with people in the
programming world. Rather, he said, Mr. Finney was a gregarious man who
loved skiing and long-distance running.

?Sometimes people pay some price for being extremely smart ? they are
deficient in some emotional quality,? Mr. Zimmermann said. ?Hal was not
like that.?

While working on P.G.P., Mr. Finney was a regular participant in a number
of futurist mailing lists, the most famous of which gave birth to the
Cypherpunk movement, dedicated to privacy-enhancing cryptography.

Following these lists, Mr. Finney became fascinated by the concept of
digital currencies that could not be tracked by governments and banks.

He was involved in many experiments aimed at creating an anonymous form of
digital money, including his own invention, in 2004, of reusable proofs of
work. Though that system never took off, he quickly saw the promise of the
Bitcoin project when it was announced on an obscure email list in 2008 by a
creator with the pseudonym Satoshi Nakamoto.

Bitcoin used some of the same cryptographic tools harnessed by P.G.P. and
held out the promise that participants could choose to be anonymous when
spending money online.

When the project drew criticism from other cryptographers, Mr. Finney was
among the first people to defend it. He downloaded the Bitcoin software the
day it was released. The day after that, he took part in the first
transaction on the network when Satoshi Nakamoto sent him 10 Bitcoins.

His early work on Bitcoin and his programming background led to frequent
speculation in the Bitcoin community that Mr. Finney was Satoshi Nakamoto,
a claim he always denied.

Soon after getting started with Bitcoin, Mr. Finney learned in 2009 that he
had A.L.S., and he withdrew, for a time, from active participation in the
project.

Harold Thomas Finney II was born on May 4, 1956, in Coalinga, Calif., to
Virginia and Harold Thomas Finney. His father was a petroleum engineer.

After graduating from Caltech in 1979 with a degree in engineering, he
worked for a company that developed video games like Astroblast and Space
Attack.

As a young man, Mr. Finney developed an interest in preserving life through
cryonic freezing until better, life-enhancing technologies were invented,
said a college roommate, Yin Shih. In 1992, Mr. Finney visited the Alcor
facility with his wife to determine whether he wanted to sign up his family
to be preserved in Alcor?s ?containment vessels.?

?In my personal opinion, anyone born today has a better than 50-50 chance
of living effectively forever,? he wrote at the time.

Mr. Finney remained an employee of the P.G.P. Corporation until his
retirement in 2011, working from his home in Santa Barbara, Calif.

In the last few years, Mr. Finney was able to move only his facial muscles,
but he communicated and wrote Bitcoin-related software using a computer
that tracked his eye movement.

?I?m pretty lucky over all,? Mr. Finney wrote on a Bitcoin website in 2013.
?Even with the A.L.S., my life is very satisfying.?

As the price of Bitcoins rose, his family, to pay for his medical care, was
able to sell some of the coins he secured in the early days.

Besides his wife, Mr. Finney is survived by a son, Jason; a daughter, Erin
Finney; two sisters, Kathleen Finney and Patricia Wolf; and a brother,
Michael. His wife, a physical therapist whom he met at Caltech, spent most
of her days caring for him in his final years.

After Mr. Finney?s death, the freezing of his remains was announced by
another futurist, Max More. ?Hal,? he wrote in a statement online. ?I know
I speak for many when I say that I look forward to speaking to you again
sometime in the future and to throwing a party in honor of your revival.?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140901/f6232f0c/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Wed Sep  3 20:01:46 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 21:01:46 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Milky Way is on the outskirts of 'immeasurable heaven'
	supercluster
Message-ID: <CAL_armhpmT5x8eRc3qL8L64pE0mPgsB0Gj61Qwgn0nqe7Knnkw@mail.gmail.com>

This places the Milky Way in a vast network of neighbouring galaxies
or "supercluster" that forms a spectacular web of stars and planets
stretching across 520m light years of our local patch of universe.
Named Laniakea, meaning "immeasurable heaven" in Hawaiian, the
supercluster contains 100,000 large galaxies that together have the
mass of 100 million billion suns.

<http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/03/milky-way-laniakea-galaxy-supercluster-immeasurable-heaven>


100 million billion suns!  And that's just our supercluster.

It's a big universe out there.


BillK


From anders at aleph.se  Wed Sep  3 21:10:07 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2014 23:10:07 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Milky Way is on the outskirts of 'immeasurable
	heaven'	supercluster
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armhpmT5x8eRc3qL8L64pE0mPgsB0Gj61Qwgn0nqe7Knnkw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1027818715-5687@secure.ericade.net>

Awesome. BTW, their own longer version of the film is at?http://irfu.cea.fr/laniakea
One of the things I have been reading up on today (for my upcoming paper about long-term information processing in the universe) is what structures will remain gravitationally bound when the acceleration speeds up. Laniakea is estimated 160 Mpc across and has 10^17 solar masses. The criterion for remaining bound is M_{obj} / 10^{12} M_{\sun} > 3 ( r_0 / 1 Mpc)^3 (this is from?http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0305211 ). So in this case the LHS is 100,000 and the RHS 1,536,000... so it is 15 times too light to keep together. Incidentally, that is the factor in the paper for how bound we are to the Virgo cluster - probably not a coincidence.?
So while we are in Laniakea right now, we will not always be. Unless we move. Or even better, move the galaxies closer together! I have been spending the afternoon estimating the mass-energy costs for large scale megascale engineering (on the K3 level): the relativistic rocket equation applies to galaxies too. There are some problems in estimating from how far away galaxies can be moved together (you need to move faster than the Hubble flow, but it is accelerating, so if you are too slow you will never reach the goal), but getting into the core of Laniakea should be fairly easy.?



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


BillK <pharos at gmail.com> , 3/9/2014 10:09 PM:
This places the Milky Way in a vast network of neighbouring galaxies 
or "supercluster" that forms a spectacular web of stars and planets 
stretching across 520m light years of our local patch of universe. 
Named Laniakea, meaning "immeasurable heaven" in Hawaiian, the 
supercluster contains 100,000 large galaxies that together have the 
mass of 100 million billion suns. 
 
<http://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/sep/03/milky-way-laniakea-galaxy-supercluster-immeasurable-heaven> 
 
 
100 million billion suns! ?And that's just our supercluster. 
 
It's a big universe out there. 
 
 
BillK 
_______________________________________________ 
extropy-chat mailing list 
extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org 
http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140903/f44ec90a/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu Sep  4 10:08:23 2014
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 06:08:23 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Immeasurable hubris
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFidcN0M8Xtptw8zjmZD5eogWP8i2ujUdWvOtZfa+jFm5w@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

>  Or even better, move the galaxies closer together!
.............
>  but getting into the core of Laniakea should be fairly easy.

### I absolutely love the immeasurable hubris of this thought! Where our
esteemed predecessors in futurism may have dreamed of sending a starship or
two to boldly explore the heavens, you say we will reach out to the stars
and make them do our bidding! *We* will compose the harmony of the spheres!

It is said that mankind shall "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the
earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky
and over every living creature that moves on the ground." But now we have
dreams of supra-Biblical proportions: Clone our minds in billions of
substrates, fill the heavens and subdue the galaxies, perhaps even rule
over assorted aliens (or at least peacefully coexist with the nice ones).

And you say it will be easy :)

Onward, soldiers of science! Do not dawdle - It's a big universe out there,
and the galaxies themselves, trembling at our steely resolve, are running
away! Go get them!

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140904/0844889b/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Thu Sep  4 20:09:09 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 22:09:09 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Immeasurable hubris
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFidcN0M8Xtptw8zjmZD5eogWP8i2ujUdWvOtZfa+jFm5w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1111536824-25417@secure.ericade.net>

Rafal Smigrodzki?<rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>?, 4/9/2014 12:15 PM:

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> ?Or even better, move the galaxies closer together!
............. ?
> ?but getting into the core of Laniakea should be fairly easy.?
?
### I absolutely love the immeasurable hubris of this thought! Where our esteemed predecessors in futurism may have dreamed of sending a starship or two to boldly explore the heavens, you say we will reach out to the stars and make them do our bidding! *We* will compose the harmony of the spheres!

Yup. You would have loved my lunch talk at the institute today where I laid out some of the math - and got interrupted by engineering improvements from the audience.

And you say it will be easy :)
Actually, next week my colleague Stuart will actually present a joint paper called "It's Easy to colonise the Universe".?
(Of course, around the office we do joke about that "in a while" right now seems to mean "in a trillion years" and "nearby" means "within a few megaparsec".)
My own long-term survival paper will be posted when it is presentable; still have to work out some astrophysics and logic. It is titled "That is not dead which can eternal lie" and gives a scientific basis for believing in something like Lovecraft's Great Old Ones. They are waiting for the background radiation to be right.?

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140904/91904a0e/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 02:53:49 2014
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 22:53:49 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Immeasurable hubris
In-Reply-To: <1111536824-25417@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CAAc1gFidcN0M8Xtptw8zjmZD5eogWP8i2ujUdWvOtZfa+jFm5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <1111536824-25417@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFjWG=k9tQtEGd31JtMexz8dTJbT4A45X0hpGVHMm-Oouw@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>
>
> My own long-term survival paper will be posted when it is presentable;
> still have to work out some astrophysics and logic. It is titled "That is
> not dead which can eternal lie" and gives a scientific basis for believing
> in something like Lovecraft's Great Old Ones. They are waiting for the
> background radiation to be right.
>

### I would be mildly skeptical of this. Assuming that the Old Ones may
want to maximize their access to negentropy in the extremely distant
future, they would have to manifest themselves during the intervening eons
in order to prevent the initiation of processes which dramatically increase
entropy, i.e. exponentially multiplying later-generation sentients, like
us. We didn't just crawl out the primordial ooze yesterday - there were
billions of years of observable evolution when a competent galactic
gardener could have nipped this weed in the bud, instead of having to deal
with an infestation that could span the whole galaxy in less than a million
years from now.

Since we are still around, the Old Ones seem to have dropped the ball
massively ... unless of course, we are one starflight away from waking up
the Reapers. Time will tell.

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140904/96102ef6/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Fri Sep  5 03:35:34 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 4 Sep 2014 20:35:34 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Immeasurable hubris
In-Reply-To: <1111536824-25417@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CAAc1gFidcN0M8Xtptw8zjmZD5eogWP8i2ujUdWvOtZfa+jFm5w@mail.gmail.com>
 <1111536824-25417@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <030201cfc8ba$756a5990$603f0cb0$@att.net>

 

 

>>] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
Subject: Re: [ExI] Immeasurable hubris

 

Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> , 4/9/2014 12:15 PM:


On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 5:10 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

>>?  Or even better, move the galaxies closer together!
.............  
>>?  but getting into the core of Laniakea should be fairly easy. 
 
### I absolutely love the immeasurable hubris of this thought!  Rafal

 

 

No way Jose!  It is measurable, or it might be.  All we need to do is develop a hubrometer, and a system of standards.  We could have competing dual units, English and metric.  Then come up with a specialized mathematical system for modeling the admittedly high end, this gigahubris.  We could have competitions to see who is the most hubric.  That would be cool, you could win just by saying with sufficient sincerity that you will win.  Of course the rest of you guys need not bother challenging me to a hubris contest, I would just embarrass you.

 

spike

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140904/d9484adc/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 08:02:27 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 09:02:27 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Milky Way is on the outskirts of 'immeasurable heaven'
	supercluster
In-Reply-To: <1027818715-5687@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CAL_armhpmT5x8eRc3qL8L64pE0mPgsB0Gj61Qwgn0nqe7Knnkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1027818715-5687@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armgx7Q-Ye45oGyyrUSk1jx4HL+2Vnr5gz+kkhLWXOHT6tg@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 10:10 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote:
<snip>
> So while we are in Laniakea right now, we will not always be. Unless we
> move. Or even better, move the galaxies closer together! I have been
> spending the afternoon estimating the mass-energy costs for large scale
> megascale engineering (on the K3 level): the relativistic rocket equation
> applies to galaxies too. There are some problems in estimating from how far
> away galaxies can be moved together (you need to move faster than the Hubble
> flow, but it is accelerating, so if you are too slow you will never reach
> the goal), but getting into the core of Laniakea should be fairly easy.
>

Wouldn't there be some small technical problems about moving galaxies?
You can't exactly tie a rope round a galaxy and drag it.

These structures are only gravitationally bound. When two galaxies
crash into each other, the light years space between suns ensures that
there are no dramatic explosions. The simulations seem to be like two
gases mixing, swirling around and eventually stabilizing.

Even if you could generate a force field large enough to contain a
galaxy and drag it, you then have the problem of maintaining the
internal structure, and not squashing all the suns together.
I don't think I'll quote for that job.

Moving the Earth to the best habitable zone as the Sun ages will keep
my company quite busy enough.

BillK


From anders at aleph.se  Fri Sep  5 08:14:07 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 10:14:07 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Immeasurable hubris
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFjWG=k9tQtEGd31JtMexz8dTJbT4A45X0hpGVHMm-Oouw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1154388286-3963@secure.ericade.net>

Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> , 5/9/2014 4:58 AM:On Thu, Sep 4, 2014 at 4:09 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote: 
My own long-term survival paper will be posted when it is presentable; still have to work out some astrophysics and logic. It is titled "That is not dead which can eternal lie" and gives a scientific basis for believing in something like Lovecraft's Great Old Ones. They are waiting for the background radiation to be right.? 
### I would be mildly skeptical of this. Assuming that the Old Ones may want to maximize their access to negentropy in the extremely distant future, they would have to manifest themselves during the intervening eons in order to prevent the initiation of processes which dramatically increase entropy, i.e. exponentially multiplying later-generation sentients, like us.? ...Since we are still around, the Old Ones seem to have dropped the ball massively ... unless of course, we are one starflight away from waking up the Reapers. Time will tell.
Dealt with in the paper, and a predecessor about deadly probes I ought to finish.?
You are right: the main prediction of the aestivation hypothesis is that processes that reduce long-term computational capacity will be suppressed. So I have been surveying astrophysics for such processes. Stellar fusion might look wasteful, but actually isn't: over its lifespan the sun will convert just?0.0006 of its mass to energy. Interstellar gas tends to condense out, and only 1-2% escape the galaxy thanks to the dark matter halo (in fact, there might be positive infall). Supernovas and black holes are not very problematic if you mainly care about remaining mass-energy. The biggest losses are from galaxy collisions (splatters gas) and the accelerating expansion (separates clusters): the lack of prevention of galaxy collisions is likely the best evidence against some forms of the aestivation hypothesis.?
Preventing young civilizations from messing up the garden is another one. I agree that killing everybody would be simplest, but not all utility functions favour it (for example, civilizations that try to maximize diversity). So the main prediction would be that activities that do not mess up the long-term state are entirely OK, but as soon as you try to build your universe-spamming von Neumann probe the "police" will show up. Which is an experimentally testable idea...
I don't think the hypothesis is super-likely, but the rewards for waiting till a late era are *huge*:?The mass-energy of just the Earth itself (5.9e24 kg) would be more than enough to power more computations in the late era than could currently be done by burning the present observable universe! (6e52 kg)?

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140905/6f780158/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Fri Sep  5 08:21:55 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 10:21:55 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Milky Way is on the outskirts of 'immeasurable
	heaven'	supercluster
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armgx7Q-Ye45oGyyrUSk1jx4HL+2Vnr5gz+kkhLWXOHT6tg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1155692567-5677@secure.ericade.net>

BillK <pharos at gmail.com> , 5/9/2014 10:07 AM:
Wouldn't there be some small technical problems about moving galaxies? 
You can't exactly tie a rope round a galaxy and drag it. 
Imagine building a Dyson-Shkadov?stellar thruster around each star, and start adding the same momentum to every star. That will set things in motion.
In order to get anywhere at a decent clip you likely will need to use more dramatic engines, but the above can also rearrange the structure of the galaxy within a few rotations. Most likely you can then start ejecting hyperrelativistic stars as reaction mass using the central black hole to slingshot them, and then use the hole as the "anchor" for the galaxy. Gravity plus a bit of steering can do a lot.

Moving the Earth to the best habitable zone as the Sun ages will keep 
my company quite busy enough.?
It is a good start!


Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140905/a72b9291/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 09:13:16 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 10:13:16 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Milky Way is on the outskirts of 'immeasurable heaven'
	supercluster
In-Reply-To: <1155692567-5677@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CAL_armgx7Q-Ye45oGyyrUSk1jx4HL+2Vnr5gz+kkhLWXOHT6tg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1155692567-5677@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armjk+3KuR62Map+hG=TNuTsfSgjvzZWn_hypN8mnkywp=g@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 9:21 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> Imagine building a Dyson-Shkadov stellar thruster around each star, and
> start adding the same momentum to every star. That will set things in
> motion.
>
> In order to get anywhere at a decent clip you likely will need to use more
> dramatic engines, but the above can also rearrange the structure of the
> galaxy within a few rotations. Most likely you can then start ejecting
> hyperrelativistic stars as reaction mass using the central black hole to
> slingshot them, and then use the hole as the "anchor" for the galaxy.
> Gravity plus a bit of steering can do a lot.
>

The stellar thrust would have to be small otherwise you risk leaving
the planetary system behind. But over millions of years the speed does
build up.

Moving the black hole at the centre of the galaxy could present some
difficulties. Especially as there is a lot of mass concentrated there.
And approaching it could get a bit tricky.

I see another problem also. Building a thruster around every star in
the galaxy means you run into relativity problems. The Milky way is
about 100,000 light years across. First, you have to get a
construction system to every star in the galaxy. Then wait until every
star has built a thruster system and reported back to central control.
Now how do you synchronize all the thrusters when you have huge light
speed communication delays? With such huge time delays how can you
tell what is happening at every star system? Have they built a better
thruster? Have they gone extinct? Do they still want to obey Galactic
Central Control orders?
Waiting 100,000 years for a reply might make Galactic Central wonder
whether this was a good idea in the first place.

I think trying to move a galaxy might be a bridge too far. Getting our
own star system to tour the galaxy and perhaps cross interstellar
space to another galaxy might be sufficiently amusing.


BillK


From anders at aleph.se  Fri Sep  5 17:36:57 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 19:36:57 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Milky Way is on the outskirts of 'immeasurable
	heaven'	supercluster
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armjk+3KuR62Map+hG=TNuTsfSgjvzZWn_hypN8mnkywp=g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1187126872-3964@secure.ericade.net>

BillK <pharos at gmail.com> , 5/9/2014 11:17 AM:
The stellar thrust would have to be small otherwise you risk leaving 
the planetary system behind. But over millions of years the speed does 
build up. 
Yes, but this is not much of a problem. Current ideas for Shkladov thrusters have accelerations on the order of tens of meters/s over a million years. Planets are hardly disturbed. Besides, when building them you are already in Dyson shell territory: picking apart planets is by definition going to be within reach.
The real trick is to get a decent acceleration: 0.03 ly in one million years is not much of a displacement. But if you make a close pass near another star, you can now get a gravity assist on the order of km/s. So you use the thrusters for steering and to get close to a passing star, which likely takes a few million years. But once that is done you can speed up the process significantly.?

I see another problem also. Building a thruster around every star in 
the galaxy means you run into relativity problems. The Milky way is 
about 100,000 light years across. First, you have to get a 
construction system to every star in the galaxy. Then wait until every 
star has built a thruster system and reported back to central control. 
Now how do you synchronize all the thrusters when you have huge light 
speed communication delays? With such huge time delays how can you 
tell what is happening at every star system? Have they built a better 
thruster? Have they gone extinct? Do they still want to obey Galactic 
Central Control orders? 
Depends on what kind of civilization you are running. Using a system such as the one in?http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/intergalactic-spreading.pdf would essentially emplace a robotic infrastructure. Now, doing a few cycles of observation, data fusion and action over 10 million years doesn't seem too out of place - I think one could design distributed swarm robotics for it, or use some central computer. The thing is, stars move slowly compared to communication.
I think that after even a million years the civilization will be pretty technologically mature (and can transmit blueprints to the systems).?
What you need is a map of all stars (relatively easy, you?potentially?have at least 10^11 telescopes AUs across) and their velocities, as well as resources to model their dynamics well enough - and you can adjust that dynamics once you are up and running. The fact that normal galactic dynamics is chaotic is no matter if you have M-brain resources, a 1-to-1 map, and can nudge things towards your desired solutions. In fact, it is that very sensitivity to initial conditions you are going to use to steer the galaxy.?

I think trying to move a galaxy might be a bridge too far. Getting our 
own star system to tour the galaxy and perhaps cross interstellar 
space to another galaxy might be sufficiently amusing. 
 
Depends on what you want to do. Taking the old solar system for a spin, sure! But I am one of those boring workaholics who also want to get entire universes of computational power for the really long-term future.?
(Although this afternoon I found a *really* annoying problem with cooling supercold computing infrastructure in the post-trillion year universe that is playing havoc with part of my plans. The time it takes to cool down my hypercluster computer after erasing one bit of information is loooong... almost a trillion years. But on the other hand, I think I can get error correction so good that bit erasure happens very rarely even for "hot" 10^-6 K computing...)?

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140905/0e549196/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 17:50:31 2014
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 13:50:31 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Immeasurable hubris
In-Reply-To: <1154388286-3963@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CAAc1gFjWG=k9tQtEGd31JtMexz8dTJbT4A45X0hpGVHMm-Oouw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1154388286-3963@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFiL1CFJvqbaTfA=vrSYrB8w+hL+Bb5zzn_AjPgaZcsc3A@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 4:14 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>
>
> Preventing young civilizations from messing up the garden is another one.
> I agree that killing everybody would be simplest, but not all utility
> functions favour it (for example, civilizations that try to maximize
> diversity). So the main prediction would be that activities that do not
> mess up the long-term state are entirely OK, but as soon as you try to
> build your universe-spamming von Neumann probe the "police" will show up.
> Which is an experimentally testable idea...
>

### What I had in mind is not necessarily killing the cute young puppy
civilizations, although a supermind dwelling in the darkness might see this
is as entirely unobjectionable. Hypervelocity objects striking all planets
bearing monocellular life, sufficient to boil the top layer of rock, once
every billion years, should do the trick bloodlessly by preventing life
from ever getting close to generating a civilization.

Maybe ours is just running late :)

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140905/299fad86/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Fri Sep  5 21:20:20 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 23:20:20 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Immeasurable hubris
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFiL1CFJvqbaTfA=vrSYrB8w+hL+Bb5zzn_AjPgaZcsc3A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1202676534-1465@secure.ericade.net>

Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> , 5/9/2014 7:54 PM:

### What I had in mind is not necessarily killing the cute young puppy civilizations, although a supermind dwelling in the darkness might see this is as entirely unobjectionable. Hypervelocity objects striking all planets bearing monocellular life, sufficient to boil the top layer of rock, once every billion years, should do the trick bloodlessly by preventing life from ever getting close to generating a civilization.
Maybe ours is just running late :)
If the system is sloppy enough to miss a few biospheres like ours, it is not stable enough to act as an explanation of the Fermi question:http://www.seti.ac.uk/dir_setinam2013/posters/posters_NAM2013_anders_sandberg.pdf(see the question 2 section to the right).


Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140905/c3764f0a/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Fri Sep  5 22:06:25 2014
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Fri, 5 Sep 2014 15:06:25 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Tambora
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB7uGMPiFYe6bg20ciCo+jUA48WM9wa3ZNQOr4piKA8MLQ@mail.gmail.com>

I want to recommend a book.

Tambora:

The Eruption That Changed the World

by Gillen D?Arcy Wood


When Indonesia?s Mount Tambora erupted in 1815, it unleashed the most
destructive wave of extreme weather the world has witnessed in
thousands of years. The volcano?s massive sulfate dust cloud enveloped
the Earth, cooling temperatures and disrupting major weather systems
for more than three years. Amid devastating storms, drought, and
floods, communities worldwide endured famine, disease, and civil
unrest on a catastrophic scale. On the eve of the bicentenary of the
great eruption, Tambora tells the extraordinary story of the weather
chaos it wrought, weaving the latest climate science with the social
history of this frightening period to offer a cautionary tale about
the potential tragic impacts of drastic climate change in our own
century.

The year following Tambora?s eruption became known as the ?Year
without a Summer,? when weather anomalies in Europe and New England
ruined crops, displaced millions, and spawned chaos and disease. Here,
for the first time, Gillen D?Arcy Wood traces Tambora?s full global
and historical reach: how the volcano?s three-year climate change
regime initiated the first worldwide cholera pandemic, expanded opium
markets in China, set the stage for Ireland?s Great Famine, and
plunged the United States into its first economic depression. Mary
Shelley?s Frankenstein?s monster, inspired by Tambora?s terrifying
storms, embodied the fears and misery of global humanity during this
transformative period, the most recent sustained climate crisis the
world has faced.

Bringing the history of this planetary emergency grippingly to life,
Tambora sheds light on the fragile interdependence of climate and
human societies, and the threat a new era of extreme global weather
poses to us all.

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/10195.html

It is worth reading an thinking about what a global weather upset will
do to the current world.  Actually, you can make a case that the
current mess in the mid east is due to a drought in Syria and other
places which has driven up to cost of food.

Keith



From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Sep  6 13:59:36 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 14:59:36 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Tambora
In-Reply-To: <CAPiwVB7uGMPiFYe6bg20ciCo+jUA48WM9wa3ZNQOr4piKA8MLQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7uGMPiFYe6bg20ciCo+jUA48WM9wa3ZNQOr4piKA8MLQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armjys7qRJthLAfRUgAOb_3LYYq+SRx9LyqQ3-vgizMf8_g@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Keith Henson  wrote:
> I want to recommend a book.
> Tambora: The Eruption That Changed the World
> by Gillen D'Arcy Wood
<snip>
> It is worth reading an thinking about what a global weather upset will
> do to the current world.  Actually, you can make a case that the
> current mess in the mid east is due to a drought in Syria and other
> places which has driven up to cost of food.
>
>

So far as I can see that 3 year climate upset didn't cause any wars.
Famines, food riots and looting did occur as starving people struggled
to survive. But civilisation didn't break down and nations didn't
invade their neighbours.

Humans killing each other is a pretty constant occurrence. Even if
some claim that there is less killing nowadays, I think it depends on
how and what you count (and who does the counting).

I think the sea level rise will be the main disruptor in future years.
People will be forced to move and invade their neighbours as their
cities go underwater.

BillK


From rtomek at ceti.pl  Sat Sep  6 16:04:05 2014
From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola)
Date: Sat, 6 Sep 2014 18:04:05 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Tambora
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armjys7qRJthLAfRUgAOb_3LYYq+SRx9LyqQ3-vgizMf8_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB7uGMPiFYe6bg20ciCo+jUA48WM9wa3ZNQOr4piKA8MLQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armjys7qRJthLAfRUgAOb_3LYYq+SRx9LyqQ3-vgizMf8_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20140906160404.GA13835@tau1.ceti.pl>

On Sat, Sep 06, 2014 at 02:59:36PM +0100, BillK wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Keith Henson  wrote:
> > I want to recommend a book.
> > Tambora: The Eruption That Changed the World
> > by Gillen D'Arcy Wood
> <snip>
> > It is worth reading an thinking about what a global weather upset will
> > do to the current world.  Actually, you can make a case that the
> > current mess in the mid east is due to a drought in Syria and other
> > places which has driven up to cost of food.
> >
> >
> 
> So far as I can see that 3 year climate upset didn't cause any wars.
> Famines, food riots and looting did occur as starving people struggled
> to survive. But civilisation didn't break down and nations didn't
> invade their neighbours.

Unless we look at current invasion of Ukraine by "green people" from
this angle. Ukraine is significant food producer. Russia imports
significant part of its food consumption (yes, really - although I
haven't looked for more data about what exactly). Dots linked?
Perhaps.

> Humans killing each other is a pretty constant occurrence. Even if
> some claim that there is less killing nowadays, I think it depends on
> how and what you count (and who does the counting).

Nowadays, I would say, killing is forced to become less individual
endeavour and more in line with big businesses of big entities, like
governments.

If ww3 breaks out with full hell ahead, I expect about 0.5-1 billion
deaths in say, first week. That way statistics will get improved and
progress will be more visible.

The people as such didn't changed much. The beasts are kept fed,
entertained and busied with various things. That's it.

> I think the sea level rise will be the main disruptor in future years.
> People will be forced to move and invade their neighbours as their
> cities go underwater.

Don't despair. Perhaps cities will be deserted by this time or people
become so much indifferent they won't notice fish in their beds. Try
to be an optimist like me.

-- 
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 protokol2020 at gmail.com  Sun Sep  7 08:25:05 2014
From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 10:25:05 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Immeasurable hubris
In-Reply-To: <1202676534-1465@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CAAc1gFiL1CFJvqbaTfA=vrSYrB8w+hL+Bb5zzn_AjPgaZcsc3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1202676534-1465@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CALMrAFRF8P3D9VFURjUNYmnQbd=75KXZ+5jdq52D6tyPNfdvEg@mail.gmail.com>

What one has to do, to conquer the at least nearby Universe, is to write
down and run some computer code, perhaps not a very long code at all. And
then just wait and watch all of the above happening automatically.

Light speed and slower probes permutating everything, from your body to
rocks.

What code? I don't know, just as the majority is clueless about any complex
code I am pretty clueless  about that one.

Except that it must be possible and that it is likely in our grasp.






On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 11:20 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> , 5/9/2014 7:54 PM:
>
>
> ### What I had in mind is not necessarily killing the cute young puppy
> civilizations, although a supermind dwelling in the darkness might see this
> is as entirely unobjectionable. Hypervelocity objects striking all planets
> bearing monocellular life, sufficient to boil the top layer of rock, once
> every billion years, should do the trick bloodlessly by preventing life
> from ever getting close to generating a civilization.
>
> Maybe ours is just running late :)
>
>
> If the system is sloppy enough to miss a few biospheres like ours, it is
> not stable enough to act as an explanation of the Fermi question:
>
> http://www.seti.ac.uk/dir_setinam2013/posters/posters_NAM2013_anders_sandberg.pdf
> (see the question 2 section to the right).
>
>
>
> Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford
> University
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>


-- 
https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140907/9a93739f/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun Sep  7 10:21:27 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 12:21:27 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Immeasurable hubris
In-Reply-To: <CALMrAFRF8P3D9VFURjUNYmnQbd=75KXZ+5jdq52D6tyPNfdvEg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1335048430-30376@secure.ericade.net>

Tomaz Kristan?<protokol2020 at gmail.com>?, 7/9/2014 10:30 AM:What one has to do, to conquer the at least nearby Universe, is to write down and run some computer code, perhaps not a very long code at all. And then just wait and watch all of the above happening automatically.

Light speed and slower probes permutating everything, from your body to rocks.

What code? I don't know, just as the majority is clueless about any complex code I am pretty clueless? about that one.

Except that it must be possible and that it is likely in our grasp.

Yes. Except that finding the code might be very non-trivial.
In his "Constructor theory" paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439) David Deutsch talks about "pharaonic tasks" where you build the tools or resources needed to build the tools to do something (potentially in many layers).?
Something we at FHI have been trying to figure out is how much we can bound the efficiency of pharaonic tasks: in a sense making a superintelligent AI is just a matter of randomly generating code and running it, since in the long run you will hit jackpot. But it is not efficient at all. Similarly simple mammals can colonize space by evolving into intelligent creatures with culture and technology - but it is not efficient (each trial takes millions of years and requires an entire planet). Intelligence means you are better at zooming in on more efficient approaches, but this only works in domains where there is information your intelligence can use to optimize. So what do we really know about the domain of writing smart code?
Some pieces we have learned: many everyday tasks are far harder than abstract tasks, big data machine learning approaches do fairly well in messy domains, the structure of problem-space is complex (check out Moore and Mertens book!), self-improving systems are not naturally exponential in the domains we have tried (genetic programming/alife, Eurisco)...

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140907/3a77514f/attachment.html>

From puglisi at arcetri.astro.it  Sun Sep  7 11:07:26 2014
From: puglisi at arcetri.astro.it (Alfio Puglisi)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 13:07:26 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Milky Way is on the outskirts of 'immeasurable heaven'
	supercluster
In-Reply-To: <1027818715-5687@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CAL_armhpmT5x8eRc3qL8L64pE0mPgsB0Gj61Qwgn0nqe7Knnkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1027818715-5687@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAJUeD7gY+5kHaqjWk0x9PHxqB5PjxYVPchX3KNrLsLA+-_CCaA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 3, 2014 at 11:10 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:


>  but getting into the core of Laniakea should be fairly easy.
>
>
I wonder if anyone will choose instead to head for the huge nearby local
void, to get away from all those hot-headed work-obsessed people :-) To
know that the closest McDonald's is at least 30 Mpc away would buy a lot of
peace of mind, even if evenings might be a bit boring.

Alfio
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140907/551a2ba2/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Sep  7 11:52:17 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 12:52:17 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Milky Way is on the outskirts of 'immeasurable heaven'
	supercluster
In-Reply-To: <CAJUeD7gY+5kHaqjWk0x9PHxqB5PjxYVPchX3KNrLsLA+-_CCaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armhpmT5x8eRc3qL8L64pE0mPgsB0Gj61Qwgn0nqe7Knnkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1027818715-5687@secure.ericade.net>
 <CAJUeD7gY+5kHaqjWk0x9PHxqB5PjxYVPchX3KNrLsLA+-_CCaA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armixFFeHNJfDjRTKXWq2M1mV7k7i1pJf50jy_DoOhSuv2A@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Alfio Puglisi wrote:
> I wonder if anyone will choose instead to head for the huge nearby local
> void, to get away from all those hot-headed work-obsessed people :-) To know
> that the closest McDonald's is at least 30 Mpc away would buy a lot of peace
> of mind, even if evenings might be a bit boring.
>

You just solved the Fermi paradox!

After a certain level of tech is reached and everyone has enough to
live comfortably, then there is a gradual shift to people saying,--
'Well I've got enough now, I don't need more stuff. Let's just drink
some Valpolicella and play in virtual reality!'   ;)


BillK


From protokol2020 at gmail.com  Sun Sep  7 13:43:35 2014
From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 15:43:35 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Immeasurable hubris
In-Reply-To: <1335048430-30376@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CALMrAFRF8P3D9VFURjUNYmnQbd=75KXZ+5jdq52D6tyPNfdvEg@mail.gmail.com>
 <1335048430-30376@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CALMrAFSTw0X6rjHsjnBDmii0XM3GE9UJLxDpt_LojQoqX4bJxw@mail.gmail.com>

Anders!

The term/logism "pharaonic tasks" is just great! I'll use it in the future
whenever I'll need to. :-)

10 years ago I contemplated and co-wrote an algorithm evolver, you can
download it here:

http//www.critticall.com/Setup_Critticall137.exe

It can do quite non-trivial things.

Evolving algorithm isn't that time consuming anymore as it used to be - say
a decade ago. Still, we are far from doing something pharaonic.









On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 12:21 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> Tomaz Kristan <protokol2020 at gmail.com> , 7/9/2014 10:30 AM:
>
> What one has to do, to conquer the at least nearby Universe, is to write
> down and run some computer code, perhaps not a very long code at all. And
> then just wait and watch all of the above happening automatically.
>
> Light speed and slower probes permutating everything, from your body to
> rocks.
>
> What code? I don't know, just as the majority is clueless about any
> complex code I am pretty clueless  about that one.
>
> Except that it must be possible and that it is likely in our grasp.
>
>
> Yes. Except that finding the code might be very non-trivial.
>
> In his "Constructor theory" paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.7439) David
> Deutsch talks about "pharaonic tasks" where you build the tools or
> resources needed to build the tools to do something (potentially in many
> layers).
>
> Something we at FHI have been trying to figure out is how much we can
> bound the efficiency of pharaonic tasks: in a sense making a
> superintelligent AI is just a matter of randomly generating code and
> running it, since in the long run you will hit jackpot. But it is not
> efficient at all. Similarly simple mammals can colonize space by evolving
> into intelligent creatures with culture and technology - but it is not
> efficient (each trial takes millions of years and requires an entire
> planet). Intelligence means you are better at zooming in on more efficient
> approaches, but this only works in domains where there is information your
> intelligence can use to optimize. So what do we really know about the
> domain of writing smart code?
>
> Some pieces we have learned: many everyday tasks are far harder than
> abstract tasks, big data machine learning approaches do fairly well in
> messy domains, the structure of problem-space is complex (check out Moore
> and Mertens book!), self-improving systems are not naturally exponential in
> the domains we have tried (genetic programming/alife, Eurisco)...
>
>
> Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford
> University
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>


-- 
https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140907/1e5b6716/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun Sep  7 14:41:44 2014
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 10:41:44 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Immeasurable hubris
In-Reply-To: <1202676534-1465@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CAAc1gFiL1CFJvqbaTfA=vrSYrB8w+hL+Bb5zzn_AjPgaZcsc3A@mail.gmail.com>
 <1202676534-1465@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFi6k3C1jGWaTVSA6qkKivTmEsT2E4+HqXvdXw9LwC9edQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 5, 2014 at 5:20 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> , 5/9/2014 7:54 PM:
>
>
> ### What I had in mind is not necessarily killing the cute young puppy
> civilizations, although a supermind dwelling in the darkness might see this
> is as entirely unobjectionable. Hypervelocity objects striking all planets
> bearing monocellular life, sufficient to boil the top layer of rock, once
> every billion years, should do the trick bloodlessly by preventing life
> from ever getting close to generating a civilization.
>
> Maybe ours is just running late :)
>
>
> If the system is sloppy enough to miss a few biospheres like ours, it is
> not stable enough to act as an explanation of the Fermi question:
>
> http://www.seti.ac.uk/dir_setinam2013/posters/posters_NAM2013_anders_sandberg.pdf
> (see the question 2 section to the right).
>

### Absolutely. As I mentioned in the post on 09/04, our existence is a
good reason to disbelieve the existence of the Old Ones. It's a small
universe after all, there is only room for either Them, or us.

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140907/d6379d11/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sun Sep  7 15:04:55 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 08:04:55 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Milky Way is on the outskirts of 'immeasurable heaven'
	supercluster
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armixFFeHNJfDjRTKXWq2M1mV7k7i1pJf50jy_DoOhSuv2A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armhpmT5x8eRc3qL8L64pE0mPgsB0Gj61Qwgn0nqe7Knnkw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1027818715-5687@secure.ericade.net>
 <CAJUeD7gY+5kHaqjWk0x9PHxqB5PjxYVPchX3KNrLsLA+-_CCaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armixFFeHNJfDjRTKXWq2M1mV7k7i1pJf50jy_DoOhSuv2A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00ca01cfcaad$16407630$42c16290$@att.net>


On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 12:07 PM, Alfio Puglisi wrote:
> I wonder if anyone will choose instead to head for the huge nearby 
> local void, to get away from all those hot-headed work-obsessed people 
> :-) To know that the closest McDonald's is at least 30 Mpc away would 
> buy a lot of peace of mind, even if evenings might be a bit boring.  Alfio

Most people choose to head for the huge nearby local void, the one that is
only years or decades away at best, the one which buys peace of mind in a
sense, and has boring evenings in a sense.  A few of us struggle mightily to
avoid as long as possible that huge eternal nearby void.

spike



From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Sun Sep  7 18:11:57 2014
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 14:11:57 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Smart watching
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFhqp-0d76u-TU8GzE0GfvCR=dvszTOa1TX-T+VMjkOFkg@mail.gmail.com>

I am thinking about buying a smartwatch as a medical monitoring device that
could perhaps be programmed to raise alarm, perhaps even automatically call
Alcor, if I became deanimated.

Both of the options below:

http://www.gizmag.com/moto-360-vs-samsung-gear-s/33694/

have heart rate monitors, so it's just a question of having the right kind
of app to get the automatic medical alarm capability. The inconvenient part
is that I would have to keep the watch on even at night for full
protection. And do the monitors work in the shower? The ideal system would
have enough comm range to keep in touch with a personal cell device,
usually a phone, be ultralight, water- and impact-proof, maybe have
hot-swappable battery packs, and have the right software to handle alarm
verification, and transfer of data to a monitoring service. A crime
alarm/911 function would be nice too.

Decisions, decisions.

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140907/44d8a336/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun Sep  7 18:42:36 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 20:42:36 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Milky Way is on the outskirts of 'immeasurable
	heaven'	supercluster
In-Reply-To: <CAJUeD7gY+5kHaqjWk0x9PHxqB5PjxYVPchX3KNrLsLA+-_CCaA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1366054586-6208@secure.ericade.net>

Alfio Puglisi <puglisi at arcetri.astro.it> , 7/9/2014 1:11 PM:?I wonder if anyone will choose instead to head for the huge nearby local void, to get away from all those hot-headed work-obsessed people :-) 

The Local Void? Nobody goes there, it is so crowded.?


Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140907/71baab66/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun Sep  7 18:46:05 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 20:46:05 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Immeasurable hubris
In-Reply-To: <CALMrAFSTw0X6rjHsjnBDmii0XM3GE9UJLxDpt_LojQoqX4bJxw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1366154133-6208@secure.ericade.net>

Tomaz Kristan?<protokol2020 at gmail.com>?, 7/9/2014 3:48 PM:
10 years ago I contemplated and co-wrote an algorithm evolver, you can download it here:
http//www.critticall.com/Setup_Critticall137.exe?

It can do quite non-trivial things.
Looks neat. Have you written up something about it? The demonstrations look good (love those packings) but it would be nice to be able to read how it works.
Overall, genetic approaches to optimization are nice. But they mainly work when the fitness landscape is somewhat forgiving. That is why optimizing algorithms themselves is so tricky, and every little step forward is worth investigating deeply.

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140907/1dc75a1d/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Sep  7 18:50:13 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2014 19:50:13 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Smart watching
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFhqp-0d76u-TU8GzE0GfvCR=dvszTOa1TX-T+VMjkOFkg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFhqp-0d76u-TU8GzE0GfvCR=dvszTOa1TX-T+VMjkOFkg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armjQhpra+NkrtU08YwP=oS48umzwfOEu-k73RAA=oK6eVg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 7:11 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote:
> I am thinking about buying a smartwatch as a medical monitoring device that
> could perhaps be programmed to raise alarm, perhaps even automatically call
> Alcor, if I became deanimated.
>
> Both of the options below:
> http://www.gizmag.com/moto-360-vs-samsung-gear-s/33694/
>
> have heart rate monitors, so it's just a question of having the right kind
> of app to get the automatic medical alarm capability. The inconvenient part
> is that I would have to keep the watch on even at night for full protection.
> And do the monitors work in the shower? The ideal system would have enough
> comm range to keep in touch with a personal cell device, usually a phone, be
> ultralight, water- and impact-proof, maybe have hot-swappable battery packs,
> and have the right software to handle alarm verification, and transfer of
> data to a monitoring service. A crime alarm/911 function would be nice too.
>

I think you should be researching wearable health devices. There is a
tremendous amount of development going on as companies expect this to
be a huge market.

I don't think your ideal device has quite reached the market yet. But
companies are aware of the requirement for long-distance monitoring of
health. e.g. patients released after a serious heart op, aged
relatives, etc. So these devices should soon be available.

<http://www.ucsf.edu/news/2014/08/116511/doctor-can-see-you-now>

BillK


From protokol2020 at gmail.com  Sun Sep  7 22:48:59 2014
From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 00:48:59 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Immeasurable hubris
In-Reply-To: <1366154133-6208@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CALMrAFSTw0X6rjHsjnBDmii0XM3GE9UJLxDpt_LojQoqX4bJxw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1366154133-6208@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CALMrAFQ+xaQ0kjsviaXMCjrV6V+e4dnKBtV2OZKSs0vrnNaoiQ@mail.gmail.com>

Anders!

The least I want is some kind of arms race around those algorithms. So I
don't talk a lot about details. But it is very on-topic here to inform
about the possibility of quite sudden breakthrough here or there.And that
this breakthrough could lead to a chain of events which would surprise
almost anyone, except few.

It has always been so. Nobody really expected what then actually
happened.It's the way we (humanity)  operate. Unexpected leaps to a new
direction.

This superintelligence business, with all its logical consequences, is
about to begin, if it hasn't already. I say, forget anything else, the
biggest fish is to fry now.



On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 8:46 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> Tomaz Kristan <protokol2020 at gmail.com> , 7/9/2014 3:48 PM:
>
>
> 10 years ago I contemplated and co-wrote an algorithm evolver, you can
> download it here:
>
> http//www.critticall.com/Setup_Critticall137.exe
>
> It can do quite non-trivial things.
>
>
> Looks neat. Have you written up something about it? The demonstrations
> look good (love those packings) but it would be nice to be able to read how
> it works.
>
> Overall, genetic approaches to optimization are nice. But they mainly work
> when the fitness landscape is somewhat forgiving. That is why optimizing
> algorithms themselves is so tricky, and every little step forward is worth
> investigating deeply.
>
>
> Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford
> University
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>


-- 
https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140908/7fa549ef/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Mon Sep  8 17:29:44 2014
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2014 13:29:44 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Smart watching
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFhqp-0d76u-TU8GzE0GfvCR=dvszTOa1TX-T+VMjkOFkg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAAc1gFhqp-0d76u-TU8GzE0GfvCR=dvszTOa1TX-T+VMjkOFkg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv21it203iiLxsHA_v_=V0wUJyACyYg7N6xHYMLH9DkJYw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 7, 2014 at 2:11 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki <rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com
> wrote:

> I am thinking about buying a smartwatch as a medical monitoring device
> that could perhaps be programmed to raise alarm, perhaps even automatically
> call Alcor, if I became deanimated.
>


Don't buy one today because Tomorrow Apple is supposed to announce its
iWatch. The following was on page 1 of the business section of the New York
Times:

The company was not the first to create a digital music player when it
introduced the iPod 13 years ago. But the device, with its click wheel and
slick integration with the iTunes software that ran on a computer, took
digital music into the mainstream.

Nor will Apple be the first to introduce a so-called smartwatch when it
unveils its much-anticipated wristband device on Tuesday, along with two
iPhones. But if the company gets it right, it could be the first to make
average people want to buy one of these devices.

Wearable computers ? attached to a wrist, a belt, a lapel or even a head ?
have so far been the property of serious gadget enthusiasts and
calorie-counting fitness buffs. While a lot of attention has been paid to
Google Glass, for example, the computer-in-eyewear is as well-known for the
privacy controversy it has caused as for its technical trailblazing.

Smartwatches have not fared much better. Samsung, Apple?s biggest rival,
introduced the first of its six smartwatches last year with a commercial
that recounted watches that have appeared in science fiction entertainment,
from ?The Jetsons? to ?Star Trek.? A long list of other tech companies like
Motorola and LG have also introduced smartwatches, but none of them have
been anywhere near as popular as the movies and television shows featured
in the Samsung ad.

Has that left an opening for Apple with the product that the media has
labeled the iWatch? Perhaps, analysts say, if the company can court
partners in other industries like health care ? health monitoring is
believed to be a major feature ? as cleverly as it courted the music
industry.

Apple, based in Cupertino, Calif., spent years negotiating with the music
industry to get music sold legally on iTunes, which happened two years
after the iPod went on sale. ?I believe they?ve been doing that with the
health market,? said Tim Bajarin, an analyst for the firm Creative
Strategies.

Not everyone thinks everyday consumers will embrace smartwatches just
because Apple is making one. Jan Dawson, an independent technology analyst
for Jackdaw Research, conducted surveys with thousands of consumers and
found that interest in some of the features in smartwatches, like fitness
tracking and mobile payments, was low.

?Smartwatches, as they currently stand, are trying to meet needs which most
people simply don?t have,? Mr. Dawson said.

Little is publicly known about what exactly the Apple watch will do other
than track some fitness statistics, make wireless payments and handle some
mobile computing tasks like maps.

?I?m hoping it?s something more akin to at least one of the high-end
fashion watches, something you wouldn?t be ashamed to go to the Oscars
with,? said Carl Howe, an analyst for the research firm the Yankee Group.

The people who created the watch have been described by Apple employees as
an ?all-star team.? Apple?s top designers and engineers who worked on its
iPhone, iPad and Macs are all part of it, several Apple employees said.

And important Apple executives have been closely supervising the product,
employees say. Among them are Jeff Williams, Apple?s senior vice president
of operations, and Jonathan Ive, Apple?s head of design. Other key players
include Kevin Lynch, formerly chief technology officer of Adobe, who has
been supervising the watch?s software; Jay Blahnik, a fitness consultant
who worked on Nike?s FuelBand device; and Michael O?Reilly, a former chief
medical officer of the Masimo Corporation, a company based in Irvine,
Calif., that makes devices for monitoring patients.

Apple designs both the hardware and software of its products, which gives
it deeper control than its rivals over things like chip design, battery
life and smarter sensors for monitoring the wearer, said Daniel Matte, an
analyst for the research firm Canalys.

But making the product is just the first step. Apple needs the support of
partners, like app developers, health care companies and medical technology
companies, that will help create the functions that give people a reason to
want to wear a computer around their wrist all the time in the first place,
said Mark A. McAndrew, a partner with the law firm Taft Stettinius &
Hollister <http://www.taftlaw.com/>, which works with health and science
clients.

Lining up deals with music labels and persuading them to agree to a charge
of 99 cents a song on iTunes was one of the reasons the iPod became
popular, say analysts. While the device itself was easy to use, it became a
gateway to a music catalog that at the time none of Apple?s competitors
could offer.

But patient privacy, which is closely guarded by the Health Insurance
Portability and Accountability Act, could be a tricky issue for Apple, Mr.
McAndrew said. Apple will have to carefully police any health-related apps
to ensure that sensitive patient information is not accessible in any way
to hackers, he said.

?That?s where the privacy issue comes into play, because health care
providers are scared to death of data breaches and privacy issues,? he
said. ?They?ve got to figure out a way to get them comfortable.?

Apple has taken some steps to keep health data private. Last week, it
updated its guidelines for app developers
<https://developer.apple.com/app-store/review/guidelines/#healthkit>, which
state that apps working with HealthKit, Apple?s new set of tools for
tracking fitness and health statistics, were not allowed to store data on
iCloud, among other rules.

Mr. Bajarin of Creative Strategies believes Apple has been quietly working
with many partners in the health industry to prepare for its
health-monitoring watch. This year, when Apple introduced its new
health-tracking tool kit, the company said it had been working closely with
the Mayo Clinic and Epic Systems, a health care software company.

Improving health monitoring could be something of a personal mission for
Apple. In the Walter Isaacson biography of Steven P. Jobs, an anecdote
about the late Apple chief recounted his hatred for the design of some of
the health-monitoring devices being used on him in the hospital where he
was being treated for cancer, like masks and the oxygen monitor on his
finger.

?Steve in his last years had an amazingly difficult relationship with the
health care industry,? Mr. Bajarin said. ?This is probably one of Steve?s
last big things that he personally drove.?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140908/3a6e9525/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Tue Sep  9 10:38:17 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 12:38:17 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Immeasurable hubris
In-Reply-To: <CALMrAFQ+xaQ0kjsviaXMCjrV6V+e4dnKBtV2OZKSs0vrnNaoiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1509675571-18601@secure.ericade.net>

Tomaz Kristan <protokol2020 at gmail.com> , 8/9/2014 12:53 AM:
Anders!

The least I want is some kind of arms race around those algorithms. So I don't talk a lot about details. But it is very on-topic here to inform about the possibility of quite sudden breakthrough here or there.
Hmm. I see your point. At the same time there is a kind of paradox in trying to do something sensible with a potential information hazard: nobody really pays attention unless you demonstrate something impressive, and then everybody takes off to do it. It is hard to argue that X is a potential risk or opportunity unless somebody has demonstrated it - which is why so much AI and synthetic biology safety discussion is more stupid than it should be.?


Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140909/03993e8e/attachment.html>

From protokol2020 at gmail.com  Tue Sep  9 10:56:03 2014
From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 12:56:03 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Immeasurable hubris
In-Reply-To: <1509675571-18601@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CALMrAFQ+xaQ0kjsviaXMCjrV6V+e4dnKBtV2OZKSs0vrnNaoiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1509675571-18601@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CALMrAFS8H2GDccW_-T9i8f6O80Lc8OMLq5bTnu6WzgKzdW94tw@mail.gmail.com>

Anders!

People often understand algorithms quite well. They really do. But they
quite sux at implementing them. They are bad programmers.

Good programmers on the other hand, have a very weak understanding of
evolution. (As even many evolutionist have the same problem!).

So, the intersection of these two sets is small, but growing.

Sooner or later the field will explode with its potentials and we will have
quite an interesting situation.



On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 12:38 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> Tomaz Kristan <protokol2020 at gmail.com> , 8/9/2014 12:53 AM:
>
> Anders!
>
> The least I want is some kind of arms race around those algorithms. So I
> don't talk a lot about details. But it is very on-topic here to inform
> about the possibility of quite sudden breakthrough here or there.
>
>
> Hmm. I see your point. At the same time there is a kind of paradox in
> trying to do something sensible with a potential information hazard: nobody
> really pays attention unless you demonstrate something impressive, and then
> everybody takes off to do it. It is hard to argue that X is a potential
> risk or opportunity unless somebody has demonstrated it - which is why so
> much AI and synthetic biology safety discussion is more stupid than it
> should be.
>
>
>
> Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford
> University
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>


-- 
https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140909/cd6ba3e9/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue Sep  9 19:12:55 2014
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 13:12:55 -0600
Subject: [ExI] The Future of Car Insurance
Message-ID: <CAPy8Rwaz3aepH0cwJ66GXK7Krr=5+ZaHDvxc4BaKbTeF48c+iA@mail.gmail.com>

Sorry for my recent silences. I've developed an addiction to food and
shelter.

I saw an advertisement yesterday that postulated that autonomous vehicles
spell the end to the automobile insurance business as we know it. Sounds
fairly plausible to me. Anyone have anything they would like to say on this
subject? Are Allstate and Geico going the way of the wooden shoe makers?

-Kelly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140909/37e42f78/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Sep  9 20:16:23 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 21:16:23 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Future of Car Insurance
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwaz3aepH0cwJ66GXK7Krr=5+ZaHDvxc4BaKbTeF48c+iA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8Rwaz3aepH0cwJ66GXK7Krr=5+ZaHDvxc4BaKbTeF48c+iA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armh=agnDRKyi6NhQZxyx7=fKBq4R5j2WAQkugQ+mQxAfnw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 8:12 PM, Kelly Anderson  wrote:
> I saw an advertisement yesterday that postulated that autonomous vehicles
> spell the end to the automobile insurance business as we know it. Sounds
> fairly plausible to me. Anyone have anything they would like to say on this
> subject? Are Allstate and Geico going the way of the wooden shoe makers?
>

Yes, big changes are on the way. But it will be gradual as the
changeover to robot cars progresses. So the insurance companies will
have years to react to the change.

Consider the situation when ALL vehicles are robot controlled. 15
years? 20 years?

There will be much fewer accidents, perhaps almost none. So insurance
will not be required. One suggestion is that manufacturers could
insure their robot cars by a small addition to the purchase cost.
In fact people may not buy cars at all by then. Just lease them (for
businesses) or call up a robot taxi when required.

This reduction in accidents will also have a big effect on the health
industry. Fewer casualties means much less work / profit for
hospitals.
Also repair shops - very little accident repair work.

It will be a different world.

BillK


From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Tue Sep  9 20:07:48 2014
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 13:07:48 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Future of Car Insurance
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwaz3aepH0cwJ66GXK7Krr=5+ZaHDvxc4BaKbTeF48c+iA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8Rwaz3aepH0cwJ66GXK7Krr=5+ZaHDvxc4BaKbTeF48c+iA@mail.gmail.com> 
Message-ID: <1410293268.47612.YahooMailNeo@web161602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>




I believe it'll take a while to change things. I think there will still be mandatory insurance requirements even on autonomous vehicles -- maybe more so as they're new.* (And probably sensible people would get insurance even if it weren't mandatory.) I wonder if what's happened with other attempts at social engineering automobiles won't happen here too. I mean increasing safety technology tends to make drivers take more risks. Granted, autonomous vehicles aren't drivers, but if there's a certain level of tolerance for risk by the ultimate decision-maker -- i.e., the person sending the vehicle on its errands -- and that remains constant, then a safer overall vehicle will probably mean that decision-maker eventually starts pushing toward the limits, no?


Regards,

Dan
 My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," is now available at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
 (It's set in Seattle, if that makes any difference.:)

* Or maybe discounts if governments want to push the technology, for good or ill.



From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Tue Sep  9 22:24:58 2014
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 15:24:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] New article
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB50kvaSDb2cYw-MmtV2JTeY9-CdKAfsBhyDrGRm+Bb+=w@mail.gmail.com>

New article on power satellites, specifically how to get millions of
tons of parts to GEO for less than $200/kg.

http://theenergycollective.com/keith-henson/485571/power-satellite-progress

Please comment if you can think of something to say.

Keith


From anders at aleph.se  Tue Sep  9 22:29:29 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 00:29:29 +0200
Subject: [ExI] The Future of Car Insurance
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwaz3aepH0cwJ66GXK7Krr=5+ZaHDvxc4BaKbTeF48c+iA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1552311097-20722@secure.ericade.net>

Another problem with autonomous vehicles is that at first there will be little safety data. Insurance runs on being able to predict risk well, so in domains where there are few data-points there will be an extra uncertainty premium. If the vehicles actually are very safe there might still be little data after years of using them, keeping insurance rates higher than they "should" be. But I am not worried about that: there will likely be more than enough accidents due to humans and data gathered from near misses.
The real problem might be correlations. Human make mistakes independent of each other. But if all cars of the same make or in the same road system act in the same way - especially if it is a distributed problem like a hack in their road network - then there might be correlated losses. That is the kind of things that break insurance.?



Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140910/33605f8b/attachment.html>

From painlord2k at libero.it  Tue Sep  9 22:34:15 2014
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 00:34:15 +0200
Subject: [ExI] The Future of Car Insurance
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armh=agnDRKyi6NhQZxyx7=fKBq4R5j2WAQkugQ+mQxAfnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8Rwaz3aepH0cwJ66GXK7Krr=5+ZaHDvxc4BaKbTeF48c+iA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armh=agnDRKyi6NhQZxyx7=fKBq4R5j2WAQkugQ+mQxAfnw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <540F8067.1000909@libero.it>

Il 09/09/2014 22:16, BillK ha scritto:

> This reduction in accidents will also have a big effect on the health
> industry. Fewer casualties means much less work / profit for
> hospitals.
> Also repair shops - very little accident repair work.

Car's casualties are often a problem because need emergency/urgent care, 
ICU, rehabilitation and follow up or long term care.
If the need is reduced, the costs associated will be a lot lower.

A back of an envelope calc found in the US, car accident claims were 
around 34.610.386.000 $ just for bodily damages and other 14 billions of 
damages. Around 50 billions total.

Now, if we were sure the government would not steal and waste this money 
we could save, there would be a lot of more resources available to 
accumulate working capital.

Mirco


From anthony at cajuntechie.org  Tue Sep  9 19:47:30 2014
From: anthony at cajuntechie.org (Anthony Papillion)
Date: Tue, 09 Sep 2014 14:47:30 -0500
Subject: [ExI] The Future of Car Insurance
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwaz3aepH0cwJ66GXK7Krr=5+ZaHDvxc4BaKbTeF48c+iA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8Rwaz3aepH0cwJ66GXK7Krr=5+ZaHDvxc4BaKbTeF48c+iA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <540F5952.7040306@cajuntechie.org>

On 09/09/2014 02:12 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote:
> Sorry for my recent silences. I've developed an addiction to food and
> shelter.
> 
> I saw an advertisement yesterday that postulated that autonomous vehicles
> spell the end to the automobile insurance business as we know it. Sounds
> fairly plausible to me. Anyone have anything they would like to say on this
> subject? Are Allstate and Geico going the way of the wooden shoe makers?

I don't think we'll see the end of the industry. Autonomous vehicles
will still have glitches and make mistakes that cause them to be
involved in and, sometimes, the cause of, accidents. Those situations
will still necessitate the need for insurance. But we're definitely not
going to see the same huge industry we see now. There just won't be room
for everybody.

Anthony


From spike66 at att.net  Wed Sep 10 04:48:49 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 21:48:49 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Future of Car Insurance
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwaz3aepH0cwJ66GXK7Krr=5+ZaHDvxc4BaKbTeF48c+iA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8Rwaz3aepH0cwJ66GXK7Krr=5+ZaHDvxc4BaKbTeF48c+iA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00d801cfccb2$84113940$8c33abc0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
Subject: [ExI] The Future of Car Insurance

 

Sorry for my recent silences. I've developed an addiction to food and shelter.

 

I have heard addicts called junkies, and I have heard of foodies.  But I don?t know of shelteries.

 

I saw an advertisement yesterday that postulated that autonomous vehicles spell the end to the automobile insurance business as we know it. Sounds fairly plausible to me. Anyone have anything they would like to say on this subject? Are Allstate and Geico going the way of the wooden shoe makers?

 

-Kelly

 

Kelly on the contrary sir.  The car insurance companies will have a great time with autonomobiles.  Insurance companies sell you the perceived risk while buying the actual risk.  They know the spread, and they make plenty of money on it.  Anything that introduces a lot of unknowns (to you, not to them) increases the spread and their profit.  We knew the health insurance companies would profit mightily with ObamaCare, regardless of how it played out.  We were right.  Car insurance companies will make out like bandits with the coming innovations, even if they need to create the perceived risk by arranging for unemployed taxi and truck drivers intentionally crashing the robo-cars.  Do not worry, they will screw us.

 

spike

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140909/ef77f74d/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Wed Sep 10 04:56:54 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 21:56:54 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Future of Car Insurance
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armh=agnDRKyi6NhQZxyx7=fKBq4R5j2WAQkugQ+mQxAfnw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8Rwaz3aepH0cwJ66GXK7Krr=5+ZaHDvxc4BaKbTeF48c+iA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armh=agnDRKyi6NhQZxyx7=fKBq4R5j2WAQkugQ+mQxAfnw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00dd01cfccb3$a56389d0$f02a9d70$@att.net>



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

>...This reduction in accidents will also have a big effect on the health
industry. Fewer casualties means much less work / profit for hospitals.
Also repair shops - very little accident repair work.   BillK
_______________________________________________

Dr. Smigrodzki might know the answer to this.  My guess is that car
accidents make very little impact on hospital bottom line profits.  They
probably did at one time, but with improvements in tires, anti-lock brakes,
increased use of seatbelts and universal front seat airbags, I can imagine
the ER sees way more patients with diabetic complications now than proles
who have damaged themselves upon the steering wheels of their Detroits.

spike



From ryacko at gmail.com  Wed Sep 10 23:08:23 2014
From: ryacko at gmail.com (Ryan Carboni)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 16:08:23 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Future of Car Insurance
Message-ID: <CAO7N=i2NKzaUYY2f-oQ8vMdkjOwz_GCg9qe1RtkskNivSwQU_Q@mail.gmail.com>

People are required to buy car insurance anyway in accordance to outdated
laws. But with low-risk autonomous cars, we could also use a rarely used
alternative: posting a bond.

Naturally insurance companies will be restricted to profiting only from the
poor, as poor people won't be able to post an upfront sum of money.

Such is the course of the future.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140910/221167f3/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu Sep 11 02:57:07 2014
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 22:57:07 -0400
Subject: [ExI] The Future of Car Insurance
In-Reply-To: <00dd01cfccb3$a56389d0$f02a9d70$@att.net>
References: <CAPy8Rwaz3aepH0cwJ66GXK7Krr=5+ZaHDvxc4BaKbTeF48c+iA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armh=agnDRKyi6NhQZxyx7=fKBq4R5j2WAQkugQ+mQxAfnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00dd01cfccb3$a56389d0$f02a9d70$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFg3uHaC5nUNd80zqYoLjkYmap3uYWc=posjD7PmSRNMoA@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 12:56 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>
>
> Dr. Smigrodzki might know the answer to this.  My guess is that car
> accidents make very little impact on hospital bottom line profits.  They
> probably did at one time, but with improvements in tires, anti-lock brakes,
> increased use of seatbelts and universal front seat airbags, I can imagine
> the ER sees way more patients with diabetic complications now than proles
> who have damaged themselves upon the steering wheels of their Detroits.
>

### I am hardly an expert on the economics of emergency medical care
provision but my guess would be that hospital systems would be only mildly
affected by driverless driving. As you note, the vast bulk of ER cases are
non-trauma related, or non-traffic trauma.

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140910/36de1d15/attachment.html>

From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu Sep 11 03:27:53 2014
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Wed, 10 Sep 2014 23:27:53 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Two envelope paradox
In-Reply-To: <1406514660.97714.YahooMailNeo@web160504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1406514660.97714.YahooMailNeo@web160504.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFguJDxSrAk-4fumddzDFAxRCgM80xqRHcSfzg_AR7SeeA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Jul 27, 2014 at 10:31 PM, The Avantguardian <
avantguardian2020 at yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> So without further ado: Imagine that Ed McMahon, or somebody suitably
> cheesy, allows you  to choose between two sealed envelopes with money in
> them. Furthermore he informs that one of the envelopes contains double the
> money of the other. So you choose one but before you can open it you are
> asked if you would like to switch your envelope for the other. So you do
> the expected value calculations on keeping or switching envelopes-
>
> Your envelope contains x dollars. The expected value of the *other*
> envelope is (1/2)*2x + (1/2)*(x/2) = 1.25x therefore the *other* envelope
> has a higher expected value than the one you hold, so you should switch.
>

### Your envelope contains x or 2x dollars with equal probability, same as
the other envelope, so you should not switch.


>
> But wait a minute. If you switch envelopes, you could do the calculation
> again and realize the the expected value of the original envelope is one
> and a quarter of the one you now hold. You could use this reasoning any
> number of times to switch envelopes. You would be trading envelopes with Ed
> McMahon indefinitely, the other envelope always being more valuable than
> the one you hold. Thereby the paradox.
>
> So to help you make up your mind, Ed McMahon allows you to open the
> envelope you now hold. You open it up, and it contains $20. Then Ed Mahaon
> gives you one last chance to switch envelopes, should you?
>

### It depends on your expectation of the distribution of rewards in
envelopes in this game, as well as your valuation of money. If you think
that the median of this distribution is closer to $40 than to $20, you
should switch. If you think the median is closer to $10, you should not.
The exact boundaries will depend on whether your valuation of rewards is
linear and what kind of shape is the distribution of rewards.

The reasoning becomes more intuitive if you are told that the multiplier
between envelopes is higher, e.g. 1000000. If the envelope shown to you
contains 1 cent, you should switch, since it's very unlikely they would
bother with putting 0.00000001$ in the other, and you can only gain a cool
10k lot while losing at most a cent. If you see $1000, you should not,
since it's very unlikely they put 1 billion in the other envelope, and you
can lose 1k, which is mildly painful.

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140910/75672162/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Sep 11 07:53:42 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:53:42 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Future of Car Insurance
In-Reply-To: <00dd01cfccb3$a56389d0$f02a9d70$@att.net>
References: <CAPy8Rwaz3aepH0cwJ66GXK7Krr=5+ZaHDvxc4BaKbTeF48c+iA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armh=agnDRKyi6NhQZxyx7=fKBq4R5j2WAQkugQ+mQxAfnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00dd01cfccb3$a56389d0$f02a9d70$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armiHD14B6BEKVw3QjnyA9Oo8bLz1c2pUVtMio=YTWdCV0A@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 5:56 AM, spike wrote:
> My guess is that car
> accidents make very little impact on hospital bottom line profits.  They
> probably did at one time, but with improvements in tires, anti-lock brakes,
> increased use of seatbelts and universal front seat airbags, I can imagine
> the ER sees way more patients with diabetic complications now than proles
> who have damaged themselves upon the steering wheels of their Detroits.
>
>

In the US there are about 50 times as many injuries as deaths in
traffic accidents. In third world countries the traffic accident rate
is horrendous. The benefit of robot cars would correspondingly be
greatest where the accident rates are highest.

As another thought, when robot cars become universal all road traffic
control systems will be abandoned. No traffic lights, Stop signs,
traffic lanes, etc. The cars would know to avoid each other and
probably travel faster than humans could cope with. To a human it
would look like high speed chaos until magically you arrived at your
destination. Eeeeek!

BillK


From spike66 at att.net  Thu Sep 11 15:15:51 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 08:15:51 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The Future of Car Insurance
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armiHD14B6BEKVw3QjnyA9Oo8bLz1c2pUVtMio=YTWdCV0A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPy8Rwaz3aepH0cwJ66GXK7Krr=5+ZaHDvxc4BaKbTeF48c+iA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armh=agnDRKyi6NhQZxyx7=fKBq4R5j2WAQkugQ+mQxAfnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00dd01cfccb3$a56389d0$f02a9d70$@att.net>
 <CAL_armiHD14B6BEKVw3QjnyA9Oo8bLz1c2pUVtMio=YTWdCV0A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <005d01cfcdd3$46cfc9d0$d46f5d70$@att.net>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf
Of BillK
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2014 12:54 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] The Future of Car Insurance

On Wed, Sep 10, 2014 at 5:56 AM, spike wrote:
> My guess is that car
> accidents make very little impact on hospital bottom line profits.  
> They probably did at one time, but with improvements in tires, 
> anti-lock brakes, increased use of seatbelts and universal front seat 
> airbags, I can imagine the ER sees way more patients with diabetic 
> complications now than proles who have damaged themselves upon the
steering wheels of their Detroits.
>
>

In the US there are about 50 times as many injuries as deaths in traffic
accidents. In third world countries the traffic accident rate is horrendous.
The benefit of robot cars would correspondingly be greatest where the
accident rates are highest.

Ja.  I was looking for a comparison of traffic deaths to other causes.  I
still don't have diabetes, but I found this interesting story.  USA Today
claims traffic deaths are converging with firearm fatalities:

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/01/09/guns-traffic-deaths-rat
es/1784595/

WASHINGTON - Deaths from traffic accidents have dropped dramatically over
the last 10 years, while firearm-related fatalities rose for decades before
leveling off in the past decade, a USA TODAY analysis of data from the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention shows.  Meanwhile, the rate of
firearms deaths has exceeded traffic fatalities in several states, including
Arizona, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Michigan, Nevada and Oregon,
records show. The rate is equal in Ohio and Pennsylvania.  In the United
States in 2010, the rate of firearm deaths was 10 people per 100,000, while
for traffic accidents it was 12 per 100,000. Firearm-related deaths totaled
31,672 in 2010.  In recent comments against gun control, bloggers,
columnists and commentators have said, "More people are killed by cars than
guns, but I don't see anyone calling for a ban on automobiles."

I don't expect much from USA Today, but it would be helpful if they would
differentiate between the type of firearm fatality.  For instance suicides
are mixed in with the rest, but those don't count in my view.  They don't
separate criminals who are slain in the act of a felony by a citizen, which
doesn't count, nor does it differentiate criminals slain by other criminals
in a gang war for instance, and I am not sure how to count that.


>...As another thought, when robot cars become universal all road traffic
control systems will be abandoned. No traffic lights, Stop signs, traffic
lanes, etc. The cars would know to avoid each other and probably travel
faster than humans could cope with. To a human it would look like high speed
chaos until magically you arrived at your destination. Eeeeek!  BillK
_______________________________________________

BillK, in our lifetimes there will likely be a long span of time when the
roads contain both robot cars and human guided.  That could go on for 3 to 5
decades, as not all people will sign on.  I can imagine plenty of perfectly
good non-robot cars on the market becoming so cheap that poor people will
drive them, without insurance.  Your scenario of robot driven accelerated
traffic cannot occur until the human drivers are out of the picture.  The
problem might get even worse when the few human drivers remaining are poor
and judgment proof.

spike



From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Thu Sep 11 16:25:54 2014
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 12:25:54 -0400
Subject: [ExI] The Future of Car Insurance
In-Reply-To: <005d01cfcdd3$46cfc9d0$d46f5d70$@att.net>
References: <CAPy8Rwaz3aepH0cwJ66GXK7Krr=5+ZaHDvxc4BaKbTeF48c+iA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armh=agnDRKyi6NhQZxyx7=fKBq4R5j2WAQkugQ+mQxAfnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00dd01cfccb3$a56389d0$f02a9d70$@att.net>
 <CAL_armiHD14B6BEKVw3QjnyA9Oo8bLz1c2pUVtMio=YTWdCV0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <005d01cfcdd3$46cfc9d0$d46f5d70$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFjQxmtpwyjHrttwKq+n1Rug=Pj-AA7dsGLz++SDi2ZsrA@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 11:15 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>  They don't
> separate criminals who are slain in the act of a felony by a citizen, which
> doesn't count, nor does it differentiate criminals slain by other criminals
> in a gang war for instance, and I am not sure how to count that.


### On the contrary, sir, it *does* count! Every criminal enemy of
goodness, slain with a gun, whether by honest citizens or by other
never-do-wells, counts as a bonus point in favor of guns!

Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140911/e75a41f7/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Sep 11 16:55:00 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 17:55:00 +0100
Subject: [ExI] The Future of Car Insurance
In-Reply-To: <005d01cfcdd3$46cfc9d0$d46f5d70$@att.net>
References: <CAPy8Rwaz3aepH0cwJ66GXK7Krr=5+ZaHDvxc4BaKbTeF48c+iA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAL_armh=agnDRKyi6NhQZxyx7=fKBq4R5j2WAQkugQ+mQxAfnw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00dd01cfccb3$a56389d0$f02a9d70$@att.net>
 <CAL_armiHD14B6BEKVw3QjnyA9Oo8bLz1c2pUVtMio=YTWdCV0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <005d01cfcdd3$46cfc9d0$d46f5d70$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armhmPi+N08YOd0m5cgxCEYwc3PrZi9B2Z+z9mgM5CwJ1ng@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 11, 2014 at 4:15 PM, spike wrote:
> BillK, in our lifetimes there will likely be a long span of time when the
> roads contain both robot cars and human guided.  That could go on for 3 to 5
> decades, as not all people will sign on.  I can imagine plenty of perfectly
> good non-robot cars on the market becoming so cheap that poor people will
> drive them, without insurance.  Your scenario of robot driven accelerated
> traffic cannot occur until the human drivers are out of the picture.  The
> problem might get even worse when the few human drivers remaining are poor
> and judgment proof.
>
>

I agree that it will take a while for the roads to be made 'robots
only'. I estimated 15 to 20 years.

But it might well be quicker than we expect. Don't assume that
governments will allow people to continue killing themselves and
others on the roads when a solution is found. Especially a solution
that causes a big increase in business profits. (Producing new robot
vehicles and scrapping old vehicles).

There are already many restrictive laws passed in the name of safety.
Helmets, seat belts, speed restrictions, no drinking or phoning, etc.
I suspect that as soon as robot vehicles prove that they don't crash,
there will be a progressive ban on manual vehicles. Starting with only
manufacturing new robot cars. Then scrapping the oldest cars first,
until all manual cars are gone.
Think of the children!   ;)

BillK


From anders at aleph.se  Thu Sep 11 21:35:29 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 23:35:29 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Hal obituary in The Economist
Message-ID: <1722017818-5527@secure.ericade.net>

http://www.economist.com/news/obituary/21615469-harold-finney-futurist-and-cypherpunk-died-august-28th-aged-58-hal-finney
Somewhat fittingly, the issue was also the technology quarterly.?

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140911/82683b26/attachment.html>

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Fri Sep 12 00:49:43 2014
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 17:49:43 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Rosetta selfie
Message-ID: <1410482983.30369.YahooMailNeo@web161604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

http://www.cnet.com/news/rosetta-spacecraft-snaps-gorgeous-selfie-with-its-comet-buddy/

Regards,

Dan
My latest Kindle book: http://www.amazon.com/Hills-Rendome-Dan-Ust-ebook/dp/B00LIIVLO2/



From atymes at gmail.com  Fri Sep 12 02:55:07 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Thu, 11 Sep 2014 19:55:07 -0700
Subject: [ExI] New article
In-Reply-To: <CAPiwVB50kvaSDb2cYw-MmtV2JTeY9-CdKAfsBhyDrGRm+Bb+=w@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB50kvaSDb2cYw-MmtV2JTeY9-CdKAfsBhyDrGRm+Bb+=w@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNS5=ikHqY5_3NsX=1nq721jf9A_cS0c+cB5P0w+WsS5ig@mail.gmail.com>

The same assumptions that one solution is the only possible solution.  What
happens if the Skylon effort fizzles?  What other options are there that
might provide equivalent capability?  (Start with other spaceplanes with
similar lift but being developed by different teams.)

On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:

> New article on power satellites, specifically how to get millions of
> tons of parts to GEO for less than $200/kg.
>
> http://theenergycollective.com/keith-henson/485571/power-satellite-progress
>
> Please comment if you can think of something to say.
>
> Keith
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140911/d91571da/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Fri Sep 12 22:15:13 2014
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2014 15:15:13 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Skylon was New article
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB6xN16KtA2JPoZLRs1uX_XUeExwkRKUxfkN+y+SUYNFzQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 5:00 AM,  Adrian Tymes <atymes at gmail.com> wrote:

>On Tue, Sep 9, 2014 at 3:24 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:

>> New article on power satellites, specifically how to get millions of
>> tons of parts to GEO for less than $200/kg.
>>
>> http://theenergycollective.com/keith-henson/485571/power-satellite-progress

> The same assumptions that one solution is the only possible solution.  What
> happens if the Skylon effort fizzles?  What other options are there that
> might provide equivalent capability?  (Start with other spaceplanes with
> similar lift but being developed by different teams.)

Good questions.  It's always a good idea to have more than one way to
do something. Unfortunately, there are no other spaceplane projects
(that I know about) in the works.  There were others some years ago,
but they all ran into intractable engineering problems or funding
issues or both.

At the moment the Skylon effort is concentrated on the SABRE engine
(redundant since SABRE is Synergetic Air-Breathing Rocket Engine).  It
has two things going for it, it's a relatively lightweight turbo
machine, much lighter per unit thrust than hypersonic ram type engines
because the internal pressures over a large volume are much lower.
The other feature is that it recovers much of the 20 kWh/kg that goes
into liquifying hydrogen.

There are two issues with power satellites, first is cost, second is
the high volume.  The minimum sized power satellite project is around
150,000 tons per year to GEO.  Using ion engines powered from the
ground that takes lifting about 180,000 tons to LEO.  Skylon takes
this up in 15 ton units and needs about 12,000 flights a year to do
it.

SpaceX Falcon Heavy (recoverable) might lift 45-50 tons to LEO so it
would take ~3000 flights a year.  At that rate I am confident they
could get the cost low enough. That rate is about 8 flights a day.
Musk is on the record opposing power satellites, but if someone gets a
chance to ask him, it would be interesting to see if he thinks it is
possible to reach that launch rate.  It would be a heck of a tourist
attraction if they could.

Depending on the specific power in kg/kW, the minimum rate generates
25-30 GW of new power plants per year. The market is *much* larger,
~100 times that large.  10-15 runways and a fleet of ~6500 Skylons
could do that.  I have a hard time imagining 800 FH launches a day and
don't know how large a fleet it would take.

Keith

PS http://withouthotair.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/solar-power-from-space.html


From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Sat Sep 13 14:48:17 2014
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan Ust)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 07:48:17 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Makes me wonder...
Message-ID: <C48AFABA-92EA-44CE-AB48-396EFE7A50C4@yahoo.com>

http://news.yahoo.com/extraordinary-brain-womans-missing-cerebellum-went-unnoticed-24-125230954.html

... how many people are out there functioning basically normally with missing brain parts or other organs.

Regards,

Dan
 My latest Kindle book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140913/20a8ef5b/attachment.html>

From painlord2k at libero.it  Sat Sep 13 16:06:25 2014
From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 18:06:25 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Makes me wonder...
In-Reply-To: <C48AFABA-92EA-44CE-AB48-396EFE7A50C4@yahoo.com>
References: <C48AFABA-92EA-44CE-AB48-396EFE7A50C4@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <54146B81.3010805@libero.it>

Il 13/09/2014 16:48, Dan Ust ha scritto:
> http://news.yahoo.com/extraordinary-brain-womans-missing-cerebellum-went-unnoticed-24-125230954.html
>
>
>
> 
... how many people are out there functioning basically normally
> with missing brain parts or other organs.

A lot more than we would suppose.

Mirco



From pharos at gmail.com  Sat Sep 13 17:07:45 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 18:07:45 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Makes me wonder...
In-Reply-To: <54146B81.3010805@libero.it>
References: <C48AFABA-92EA-44CE-AB48-396EFE7A50C4@yahoo.com>
 <54146B81.3010805@libero.it>
Message-ID: <CAL_armitL4zOM=1GF43-9iN0vibvArnj_8=1NnBDOa=AvCu=xQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Mirco Romanato wrote:
> ... how many people are out there functioning basically normally
> with missing brain parts or other organs.
>
> A lot more than we would suppose.
>

Yes. For example, look up vascular dementia.
This is a result of small strokes in the brain creating dead areas in the brain.
These small strokes can happen at any time and usually go unnoticed
until the damage gets bad enough. So many people carry on functioning
after mini-strokes and protest that they feel fine.

A doctor told me that almost every time they do a brain scan they find
dead areas in the brain.
(Of course they are doing a scan because the patient has noticeable
behavioural defects).

BillK


From spike66 at att.net  Sun Sep 14 03:33:44 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 20:33:44 -0700
Subject: [ExI] randall monroe book tops nyt best seller list for non fiction
	hardcover
Message-ID: <008301cfcfcc$b069de80$113d9b80$@att.net>



Well now, this is cool.  Randall Monroe, the creator of xkcd, perhaps the
coolest cartoon strip since Calvin and Hobbes, and arguably the best ever,
has written a book called What If.  It is about science hypotheticals.  I
was pleasantly surprised to see it land on the top of the New York Times
hardcover nonfiction best seller list.  Excellent!

Has anyone seen it?  I have half a mind to order a copy.

spike



From atymes at gmail.com  Sun Sep 14 05:53:56 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Sat, 13 Sep 2014 22:53:56 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Skylon was New article
In-Reply-To: <CAPiwVB6xN16KtA2JPoZLRs1uX_XUeExwkRKUxfkN+y+SUYNFzQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB6xN16KtA2JPoZLRs1uX_XUeExwkRKUxfkN+y+SUYNFzQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQmjObbkqsjxoWGO5BPtXzvR0F21jankGaUpZ2D+CfxpA@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 12, 2014 at 3:15 PM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com>
wrote:

> Good questions.  It's always a good idea to have more than one way to
> do something. Unfortunately, there are no other spaceplane projects
> (that I know about) in the works.  There were others some years ago,
> but they all ran into intractable engineering problems or funding
> issues or both.
>

I said start with spaceplane.  There are alternatives.

The main thing causing the funding problems is the lack of market.  You
have to build up the customer base for space in general, in order to
generate the funding for the level of space access you're talking about.


> The minimum sized power satellite project is


way smaller than your assumptions lead you to swear by.


> SpaceX Falcon Heavy (recoverable) might lift 45-50 tons to LEO so it
> would take ~3000 flights a year.  At that rate I am confident they
> could get the cost low enough. That rate is about 8 flights a day.
> Musk is on the record opposing power satellites, but if someone gets a
> chance to ask him, it would be interesting to see if he thinks it is
> possible to reach that launch rate.


He can't - not without building a whole lot of them and dedicating them all
to the mission.  There's no way a single unit of that design could turn
around 8 flights a day, probably not even 8 a month.

If you really want to do solar power satellites the way you're thinking,
you must first solve the cost and capacity of space access.  That means
getting your hands - or at least mind - dirty with figuring out how to get
space access going before multi-ton solar power satellites.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140913/a454e94e/attachment.html>

From jukka.liukkonen at iki.fi  Sun Sep 14 06:20:27 2014
From: jukka.liukkonen at iki.fi (Jukka Liukkonen)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 09:20:27 +0300
Subject: [ExI] Makes me wonder...
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armitL4zOM=1GF43-9iN0vibvArnj_8=1NnBDOa=AvCu=xQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C48AFABA-92EA-44CE-AB48-396EFE7A50C4@yahoo.com>
 <54146B81.3010805@libero.it>
 <CAL_armitL4zOM=1GF43-9iN0vibvArnj_8=1NnBDOa=AvCu=xQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPpVbvTcD4h4HskidmN3NJiqmR1nbwxTyCCqbcuz2g24NGyFFQ@mail.gmail.com>

I wonder how large portions of a human body could be removed and it could
still function somewhat normally.

Maybe we could create a list?

- parts of brain
- another kidney
- appendix
- some or all teeth (if replaced)
- some fingers and toes (but which could be removed?)


This is just a hypothetical list, I hope no one goes to a surgeon with this
list haha


br,
Jukka

http://www.murrur.fi/

Sivu / page: https://www.facebook.com/murrur
Sanat / words: http://twitter.com/mur
l?yd?t/ findings: http://pinterest.com/mur/

2014-09-13 20:07 GMT+03:00 BillK <pharos at gmail.com>:

> On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Mirco Romanato wrote:
> > ... how many people are out there functioning basically normally
> > with missing brain parts or other organs.
> >
> > A lot more than we would suppose.
> >
>
> Yes. For example, look up vascular dementia.
> This is a result of small strokes in the brain creating dead areas in the
> brain.
> These small strokes can happen at any time and usually go unnoticed
> until the damage gets bad enough. So many people carry on functioning
> after mini-strokes and protest that they feel fine.
>
> A doctor told me that almost every time they do a brain scan they find
> dead areas in the brain.
> (Of course they are doing a scan because the patient has noticeable
> behavioural defects).
>
> BillK
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140914/03912818/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun Sep 14 09:07:36 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 11:07:36 +0200
Subject: [ExI] randall monroe book tops nyt best seller list for non
 fiction	hardcover
In-Reply-To: <008301cfcfcc$b069de80$113d9b80$@att.net>
Message-ID: <1936341693-20014@secure.ericade.net>

spike?<spike66 at att.net>?, 14/9/2014 5:50 AM:Well now, this is cool. ?Randall Monroe, the creator of xkcd, perhaps the?
coolest cartoon strip since Calvin and Hobbes, and arguably the best ever,?
has written a book called What If. ?It is about science hypotheticals. ?I?
was pleasantly surprised to see it land on the top of the New York Times?
hardcover nonfiction best seller list. ?Excellent!?

Very cool. We are chuffed around the office that Nick's Superintelligence is merely *on* the NYT science list.?
People need to do more hypotheticals.

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140914/5e9ec945/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun Sep 14 09:17:26 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 11:17:26 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Makes me wonder...
In-Reply-To: <CAPpVbvTcD4h4HskidmN3NJiqmR1nbwxTyCCqbcuz2g24NGyFFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1936469061-1816@secure.ericade.net>

Jukka Liukkonen?<jukka.liukkonen at iki.fi>?, 14/9/2014 8:24 AM:I wonder how large portions of a human body could be removed and it could still function somewhat normally.
Thinking of how to make lightweight astronauts?
Depends on what you mean by "function". Remaining alive, being able to post to the Internet, or making omelette? And how much external tech is allowed?
People can live good lives without their limbs. Gall bladders are not necessary, in older people the thymus gland is already rather non-functional (in fact, a whole slew of glands can be replaced with external hormones).
Parenteral nutrition can keep people alive intravenously without a functioning gastrointestinal tract. Dialysis is worse than kidneys, but works. I think there are a few permanent skin substitutes, but none of them is very good. There are heart-lung machines replacing that part of the cardiopulmonary system. Bone replacements exist. People with paralysing syndromes can communicate using brain-computer interfaces if they are inserted early enough.?


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


-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140914/9b705249/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Sep 14 12:06:19 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 13:06:19 +0100
Subject: [ExI] A Tea Party activist supports solar power
Message-ID: <CAL_armi51fZ3KsFnqLWjoYqv6sr+_h=ghux_5nS-3d4mRXzWCw@mail.gmail.com>

Debbie Dooley is not a tree-hugger - in fact she bills herself as a
radical right-wing grandmother, and she is a founding member of the
national Tea Party and a leader of the Atlanta Tea Party.

<http://www.midwestenergynews.com/2014/09/11/qa-tea-party-star-heads-to-wisconsin-to-fight-for-solar/>

Quotes:
I began to get interested in energy with a fight we were carrying on
with Georgia Power. They're a monopoly here in Georgia. They were not
acting in the best interest of ratepayers in regards to some of their
policies. They were building two nuclear reactors at Plant Vogtle, and
the utility customers were paying for that in advance. There were
massive cost overruns expected, and yet they were making a guaranteed
profit on the cost of the two reactors and the cost overruns.

I began to take a closer look at energy for that reason. I've always
been a free-market conservative. I began to realize a monopoly is not
a free market, a monopoly violates free-market principles. Solar is a
way to give monopolies very much needed competition. It also provides
consumer choice.

This is not a liberal issue, it has become a national security issue
for our country. The grid can be attacked. Look at the Silicon Valley
attack - they opened fire on some of the substations with AK-47s, took
them down, and they just vanished into the night. Our grid is so
centralized, it's a national security issue.

When I started doing research and seeing what We Energies is trying to
do in Wisconsin, I was appalled. Here you have a giant utility to
trying to protect their profit margin by taxing the sun and taxing
manure. You can call it whatever you want to, it is a tax. I think
that is totally ridiculous.

I believe conservatives who believe in the free market would be
receptive to the right message. If you go out and say we need solar
because of climate change and you hate coal, that's the wrong message.
If you go out and hold elected officials accountable for supporting
these monopolies, that's something conservatives will respond to.
--------------


BillK


From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sun Sep 14 13:02:19 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 08:02:19 -0500
Subject: [ExI] randall monroe book tops nyt best seller list for non
 fiction hardcover
In-Reply-To: <1936341693-20014@secure.ericade.net>
References: <008301cfcfcc$b069de80$113d9b80$@att.net>
 <1936341693-20014@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEYxQYkQ=Bn0u0=-xTLYCmT+n4uh+dgx9Fmq_aOU1MPQ3w@mail.gmail.com>

? Randall Monroe, the creator of xkcd, perhaps the coolest cartoon strip
since Calvin and Hobbes, and arguably the best ever,
has written a book called What If?


?This is free if you subscribe to Kindle Unlimited.  bill w?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140914/ebd7f707/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sun Sep 14 14:50:03 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 07:50:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] randall monroe book tops nyt best seller list for non
	fiction	hardcover
In-Reply-To: <1936341693-20014@secure.ericade.net>
References: <008301cfcfcc$b069de80$113d9b80$@att.net>
 <1936341693-20014@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <00c101cfd02b$2bb3f9a0$831bece0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg
Subject: Re: [ExI] randall monroe book tops nyt best seller list for non fiction hardcover

 

 

>?Very cool. We are chuffed around the office that Nick's Superintelligence is merely *on* the NYT science list. 

 

How very British!  I learn a new word this day.  I am way Chuffed.  Thanks Anders.  {8-]

 

>?People need to do more hypotheticals.  Anders Sandberg?

 

Indeed.  That?s how thought-space expands.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140914/ee1a365f/attachment.html>

From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu  Sun Sep 14 13:35:28 2014
From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 09:35:28 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Makes me wonder...
In-Reply-To: <CAPpVbvTcD4h4HskidmN3NJiqmR1nbwxTyCCqbcuz2g24NGyFFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C48AFABA-92EA-44CE-AB48-396EFE7A50C4@yahoo.com>
 <54146B81.3010805@libero.it>
 <CAL_armitL4zOM=1GF43-9iN0vibvArnj_8=1NnBDOa=AvCu=xQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpVbvTcD4h4HskidmN3NJiqmR1nbwxTyCCqbcuz2g24NGyFFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <FF4DB30C-C1DA-4374-BD33-541AA76433BC@alumni.virginia.edu>

I believe I recall reading about such experiments being done on dogs and monkeys long ago. I can't provide a reference however. 
-Henry 

> On Sep 14, 2014, at 2:20 AM, Jukka Liukkonen <jukka.liukkonen at iki.fi> wrote:
> 
> I wonder how large portions of a human body could be removed and it could still function somewhat normally.
> 
> Maybe we could create a list?
> 
> - parts of brain
> - another kidney
> - appendix
> - some or all teeth (if replaced)
> - some fingers and toes (but which could be removed?)
> 
> 
> This is just a hypothetical list, I hope no one goes to a surgeon with this list haha
> 
> 
> br,
> Jukka 
> 
> http://www.murrur.fi/
> 
> Sivu / page: https://www.facebook.com/murrur
> Sanat / words: http://twitter.com/mur
> l?yd?t/ findings: http://pinterest.com/mur/  
> 
> 2014-09-13 20:07 GMT+03:00 BillK <pharos at gmail.com>:
>> On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Mirco Romanato wrote:
>> > ... how many people are out there functioning basically normally
>> > with missing brain parts or other organs.
>> >
>> > A lot more than we would suppose.
>> >
>> 
>> Yes. For example, look up vascular dementia.
>> This is a result of small strokes in the brain creating dead areas in the brain.
>> These small strokes can happen at any time and usually go unnoticed
>> until the damage gets bad enough. So many people carry on functioning
>> after mini-strokes and protest that they feel fine.
>> 
>> A doctor told me that almost every time they do a brain scan they find
>> dead areas in the brain.
>> (Of course they are doing a scan because the patient has noticeable
>> behavioural defects).
>> 
>> BillK
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140914/a54eb332/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sun Sep 14 16:36:46 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sun, 14 Sep 2014 11:36:46 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Makes me wonder...
In-Reply-To: <FF4DB30C-C1DA-4374-BD33-541AA76433BC@alumni.virginia.edu>
References: <C48AFABA-92EA-44CE-AB48-396EFE7A50C4@yahoo.com>
 <54146B81.3010805@libero.it>
 <CAL_armitL4zOM=1GF43-9iN0vibvArnj_8=1NnBDOa=AvCu=xQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPpVbvTcD4h4HskidmN3NJiqmR1nbwxTyCCqbcuz2g24NGyFFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <FF4DB30C-C1DA-4374-BD33-541AA76433BC@alumni.virginia.edu>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEaotB9B8hY7=VmsCC4mLXh50nkB8a-M=SUNU6J7Oe6Rnw@mail.gmail.com>

Before 1950 studies were done where rats learned to run a maze, then had
some brains removed.  Turned out that it did not matter what part they
removed, only how much (bet they didn't remove the hippocampus, though.)
bill w

On Sun, Sep 14, 2014 at 8:35 AM, Henry Rivera <hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu>
wrote:

> I believe I recall reading about such experiments being done on dogs and
> monkeys long ago. I can't provide a reference however.
> -Henry
>
> On Sep 14, 2014, at 2:20 AM, Jukka Liukkonen <jukka.liukkonen at iki.fi>
> wrote:
>
> I wonder how large portions of a human body could be removed and it could
> still function somewhat normally.
>
> Maybe we could create a list?
>
> - parts of brain
> - another kidney
> - appendix
> - some or all teeth (if replaced)
> - some fingers and toes (but which could be removed?)
>
>
> This is just a hypothetical list, I hope no one goes to a surgeon with
> this list haha
>
>
> br,
> Jukka
>
> http://www.murrur.fi/
>
> Sivu / page: https://www.facebook.com/murrur
> Sanat / words: http://twitter.com/mur
> l?yd?t/ findings: http://pinterest.com/mur/
>
> 2014-09-13 20:07 GMT+03:00 BillK <pharos at gmail.com>:
>
>> On Sat, Sep 13, 2014 at 5:06 PM, Mirco Romanato wrote:
>> > ... how many people are out there functioning basically normally
>> > with missing brain parts or other organs.
>> >
>> > A lot more than we would suppose.
>> >
>>
>> Yes. For example, look up vascular dementia.
>> This is a result of small strokes in the brain creating dead areas in the
>> brain.
>> These small strokes can happen at any time and usually go unnoticed
>> until the damage gets bad enough. So many people carry on functioning
>> after mini-strokes and protest that they feel fine.
>>
>> A doctor told me that almost every time they do a brain scan they find
>> dead areas in the brain.
>> (Of course they are doing a scan because the patient has noticeable
>> behavioural defects).
>>
>> BillK
>> _______________________________________________
>> extropy-chat mailing list
>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140914/be42e78e/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun Sep 14 22:55:23 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 00:55:23 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Makes me wonder...
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEaotB9B8hY7=VmsCC4mLXh50nkB8a-M=SUNU6J7Oe6Rnw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1985826345-6760@secure.ericade.net>

William Flynn Wallace?<foozler83 at gmail.com>?, 14/9/2014 6:40 PM:Before 1950 studies were done where rats learned to run a maze, then had some brains removed.? Turned out that it did not matter what part they removed, only how much (bet they didn't remove the hippocampus, though.)?
You are probably thinking of Lashley's old experiments where he was looking for the engram.?http://psych.stanford.edu/~jlm/pdfs/Lashley50Engram.pdfhttp://www.intropsych.com/ch06_memory/lashleys_research.htmlOf course, the problem here was that maze running is polymodal and I do think the hippcampus was never touched. But it demonstrated that the cortex is pretty resilient and has redundancy, and provided the original claim for the "We only use 10% of our brain" factoid.?

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140915/ff6e5aa4/attachment.html>

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Mon Sep 15 17:52:12 2014
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Mon, 15 Sep 2014 10:52:12 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Human Enhancement: Making the Debate More Productive by Janet
	A. Kourany
Message-ID: <1410803532.76990.YahooMailNeo@web161602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

See http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-013-9539-z

Haven't read the full article.


Regards,

Dan
 My latest Kindle book:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2


From anders at aleph.se  Mon Sep 15 23:20:29 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 01:20:29 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Human Enhancement: Making the Debate More Productive by
 Janet	A. Kourany
In-Reply-To: <1410803532.76990.YahooMailNeo@web161602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <2073637742-5713@secure.ericade.net>

Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com> , 15/9/2014 8:09 PM:
See http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-013-9539-z 
 
Haven't read the full article. 

It argues that the enhancement debate is not going anywhere because (1) lack of empirical information, and (2) lack of a normative framework. Philosophers of science are not part of the debate but could contribute.
The empirical part is true, and I often make the point myself. The claim about the normative part is problematic: any ethicist worth their salt can come up with normative frameworks, but that doesn't mean they are going to be universally accepted, either among the participants or the world at large.?

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140916/49272672/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Mon Sep 15 23:51:27 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 01:51:27 +0200
Subject: [ExI] A human fox among the mice
Message-ID: <2075576642-9149@secure.ericade.net>

Rather cool: the human version of the FOXP2 gene makes mice learn stimulus-response associations faster, especially when declarative and procedural memory need to work together:http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/health/genetics/if-you-give-a-mouse-a-human-speech-gene-it-learns-faster-17210075?src=spr_TWITTER&spr_id=1457_88800754
Original paper:http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2014/09/11/1414542111
Apropos enhancement, check out the series on enhancing virtues by the IEET guys. Lots of good references there.http://ieet.org/index.php/IEET/cyborgbuddha


Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140916/a716d5f7/attachment.html>

From max at maxmore.com  Tue Sep 16 18:41:31 2014
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 11:41:31 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Impact of reduced costs to Alcor members
Message-ID: <CAJX-7wU_j3W36uw6g1XUK77FV0DTF8SwZuwuq_RdbV4=1MNSDQ@mail.gmail.com>

At this year?s annual meeting, Alcor reduced membership dues (for those not
receiving discounts) by 10% and also waived the $180/year CMS fee for those
with cryopreservation funding at least $20,000 over current minimums. For
many members, that means a reduction in membership costs by $240 per year
(31% reduction).



The CMS waiver should be especially helpful to members young enough to get
cheap life insurance. The cost of the extra insurance will be very low for
younger members, making the CMS waiver option attractive.



Older members may find additional life insurance expensive or impossible to
get. Many of these members will instead benefit from the new alternative
funding policy. They will be able to use assets such as real estate, 401(k)
plans, and bequests to fund up to half of their cryopreservation minimums.



Overseas members, who can also enjoy lower costs from the above changes,
additionally benefit from the reduction in the overseas surcharge.



Details of these four cost-lowering changes are here:

http://www.alcor.org/blog/

-- 
Max More, PhD
Strategic Philosopher
Co-editor, *The Transhumanist Reader*
http://www.amazon.com/Transhumanist-Reader-Contemporary-Technology-Philosophy/dp/1118334310/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372225570&sr=1-1&keywords=the+transhumanist+reader
President & CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140916/e2ca5a8e/attachment.html>

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Tue Sep 16 19:03:47 2014
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 12:03:47 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Human Enhancement: Making the Debate More Productive by
	Janet	A. Kourany
In-Reply-To: <2073637742-5713@secure.ericade.net>
References: <1410803532.76990.YahooMailNeo@web161602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <2073637742-5713@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <1410894227.60556.YahooMailNeo@web161605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Maybe Michael Huemer's approach might prove helpful here: start with fairly "intuitive" and popular moral core beliefs -- no "ew, brain mods are yucky," but "people should improve themselves" -- and see how enhancement fends against them.

 
Regards, 

Dan 
 My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," is now available at: 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2 



On Monday, September 15, 2014 4:20 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
 


Dan<dan_ust at yahoo.com> , 15/9/2014 8:09 PM:

See http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10670-013-9539-z 
>
>Haven't read the full article. 


It argues that the enhancement debate is not going anywhere because (1) lack of empirical information, and (2) lack of a normative framework. Philosophers of science are not part of the debate but could contribute.

The empirical part is true, and I often make the point myself. The claim about the normative part is problematic: any ethicist worth their salt can come up with normative frameworks, but that doesn't mean they are going to be universally accepted, either among the participants or the world at large. 

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140916/1fe83996/attachment.html>

From clementlawyer at gmail.com  Wed Sep 17 02:02:15 2014
From: clementlawyer at gmail.com (James Clement)
Date: Tue, 16 Sep 2014 19:02:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Impact of reduced costs to Alcor members
In-Reply-To: <CAJX-7wU_j3W36uw6g1XUK77FV0DTF8SwZuwuq_RdbV4=1MNSDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wU_j3W36uw6g1XUK77FV0DTF8SwZuwuq_RdbV4=1MNSDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+LBAbRPXtCtyh2rfnACYMaO0xOPxo5QwG3KNKDhi=YpyTDQCQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 16, 2014 at 11:41 AM, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:

> At this year?s annual meeting, Alcor reduced membership dues (for those
> not receiving discounts) by 10% and also waived the $180/year CMS fee for
> those with cryopreservation funding at least $20,000 over current minimums.
> For many members, that means a reduction in membership costs by $240 per
> year (31% reduction).
>
>
>
> The CMS waiver should be especially helpful to members young enough to get
> cheap life insurance. The cost of the extra insurance will be very low for
> younger members, making the CMS waiver option attractive.
>
>
>
> Older members may find additional life insurance expensive or impossible
> to get. Many of these members will instead benefit from the new alternative
> funding policy. They will be able to use assets such as real estate, 401(k)
> plans, and bequests to fund up to half of their cryopreservation minimums.
>
>
>
> Overseas members, who can also enjoy lower costs from the above changes,
> additionally benefit from the reduction in the overseas surcharge.
>
>
>
> Details of these four cost-lowering changes are here:
>
> http://www.alcor.org/blog/
>



Well done Max! Thanks for doing such a great job running Alcor.

James
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140916/0801a6af/attachment.html>

From possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 17 12:11:16 2014
From: possiblepaths2050 at gmail.com (John Grigg)
Date: Wed, 17 Sep 2014 05:11:16 -0700
Subject: [ExI] David Brin will be on Coast to Coast AM tonight....
Message-ID: <CAGSKFy11SmJsYq=SaxZcCpi0mNRmmoYrekuYO-ALT9+vrCakPw@mail.gmail.com>

David Brin will be on the radio interview program, Coast to Coast AM,
tonight!

"David Brin is a scientist, futurist and best-selling author as well as a
leading commentator on modern trends. He'll discuss a wide range of topics
including his work with NASA, managing resources on Earth in preparation
for colonizing space, SETI, transhumanism, alien life forms, the state of
science-fiction, and what we should be reading in order to prepare for the
future ahead."

http://www.coasttocoastam.com/show/2014/09/17

It seems like every time I turn around I bump into David Brin, due to his
appearances at book festivals and ASU conferences....  It's gotten to the
point where when David sees me, he comes over to give me a friendly hello.


John  :  )
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140917/6bc2f5d5/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Fri Sep 19 23:38:16 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Fri, 19 Sep 2014 16:38:16 -0700
Subject: [ExI] talk like a pirate day
Message-ID: <014001cfd462$c9fa47a0$5deed6e0$@att.net>

 

 

Today is International Talk Like a Pirate Day


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


Pirate keyboard

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140919/7ed5f87d/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 4586150847204572.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 89641 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140919/7ed5f87d/attachment.jpe>

From test at ssec.wisc.edu  Sat Sep 20 12:18:52 2014
From: test at ssec.wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 07:18:52 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ExI] Searle's review of Bostrom's book
Message-ID: <Pine.SOC.4.64.1409200717320.15602@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/g/searle_comment.pdf


From foozler83 at gmail.com  Sat Sep 20 12:57:51 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Sat, 20 Sep 2014 07:57:51 -0500
Subject: [ExI] short book review
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEY6bt4OoUMc1hqu-5bb1VySqTsPaRGK1RrqN3NdMJUmFg@mail.gmail.com>

"What If", as suggested earlier by a member, is worth the price (zero in my
case with Kindle Unlimited) and far more.  The title could have been WWTMI
(way, way too much information), which of course is the main delight of the
book.  It should particularly appeal to those of us who love to calculate
inane things and come up with results requiring several barrels of zeros.

So if you might be interested in a book which features a flying platform
powered by 300 Kalishnykov rifles, this is for you.
Bill W
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140920/dedf31c4/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sun Sep 21 09:26:44 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 11:26:44 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Searle's review of Bostrom's book
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOC.4.64.1409200717320.15602@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
Message-ID: <2542092781-32235@secure.ericade.net>

Bill Hibbard?<test at ssec.wisc.edu>?, 20/9/2014 2:33 PM:http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/g/searle_comment.pdf?
Interesting that somebody as smart as Searle misses this fairly obvious point.?
I suspect his mistake is that he thinks consciousness is essential for intelligence, and hence, given his philosophical commitments, there is no AI problem. But this is a risky strategy for arguing a risk is zero, since even if one has good reasons to think one is right one can still be wrong. Especially about philosophy of mind and future technology.


Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140921/bd9326d4/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Sun Sep 21 11:52:20 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 12:52:20 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Searle's review of Bostrom's book
In-Reply-To: <2542092781-32235@secure.ericade.net>
References: <Pine.SOC.4.64.1409200717320.15602@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
 <2542092781-32235@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armh7ee5SRO7B4RVKbCJ0UHBbG_jgFykpKm0cJ3sgF3XGZg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, Sep 21, 2014 at 10:26 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote:
> I suspect his mistake is that he thinks consciousness is essential for
> intelligence, and hence, given his philosophical commitments, there is no AI
> problem. But this is a risky strategy for arguing a risk is zero, since even
> if one has good reasons to think one is right one can still be wrong.
> Especially about philosophy of mind and future technology.
>

Strange, when we now know that humans operate most of the time without
conscious thought.
Conscious thinking is really hard work.

<http://www.amazon.com/Thinking-Fast-Slow-Daniel-Kahneman/dp/0374533555>
Quote:
Kahneman introduces two mental systems, one that is fast and the other
slow. Together they shape our impressions of the world around us and
help us make choices. System 1 is largely unconscious and it makes
snap judgements based upon our memory of similar events and our
emotions. System 2 is painfully slow, and is the process by which we
consciously check the facts and think carefully and rationally.
Problem is, System 2 is easily distracted and hard to engage, and
System 1 is wrong as often as it is right. System 1 is easily swayed
by our emotions.
---------

BillK


From tim at tt1.org  Sun Sep 21 10:32:20 2014
From: tim at tt1.org (Tim Tyler)
Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 06:32:20 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Searle's review of Bostrom's book
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOC.4.64.1409200717320.15602@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
References: <Pine.SOC.4.64.1409200717320.15602@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
Message-ID: <541EA934.6030205@tt1.org>

On 20/09/2014 08:18, Bill Hibbard wrote:

> http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/g/searle_comment.pdf

Searle is completely confused (news at eleven).  However Bill's
commentary says:

"Computers that can run the entire world economy and provide constant
  companionship to all humans will pose great danger to humans."

This is speculation. Computers powerful enough to run the entire
world economy could have the *potential* to pose great danger
to humans.

However, humans are already at risk. Unless we develop
superintelligent machines we'll all be obliterated.

Superintelligent machines are surely likely to *reduce*
the chance of this happening.  IMO, the sooner we develop
them, the safer we will be.

What are the alternatives? A big war that keeps us stuck
in the stone age? A luddite totalitarian government that
criminalizes research and doesn't perform any itself?
Are these alternatives *really* any safer?  Or would it
be fair to say that they "pose great danger to humans".
-- 
__________
  |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim at tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.



From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Sep 22 17:06:44 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 18:06:44 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Brains grow and shrink like 'rainbows' as we age
Message-ID: <CAL_armj02dW+1GBZovrsc9xTJx1kDnK_o_dkCc6ps+Y90va20g@mail.gmail.com>

Researchers have used a new magnetic resonance imaging technique to
show, for the first time, how human brain tissue changes throughout
life. They say a normal curve is shaped like a rainbow.

Nerve bundles in the brain increase in volume until we turn 40 and
then--like the rest of our body--slowly start to deteriorate. By the end
of our lives, the tissue in our brain is about the volume of a
7-year-old child.  (Yikes!!).

<http://www.futurity.org/brain-volume-aging-mri-768612/>

What they found is that the normal curve for brain composition is
rainbow-shaped. It starts and ends with roughly the same amount of
white matter and peaks between ages 30 and 50. But each of the 24
regions changes a different amount. Some parts of the brain, like
those that control movement, are long, flat arcs, staying relatively
stable throughout life.

Others, like the areas involved in thinking and learning, are steep
arches, maturing dramatically and then falling off quickly.
--------------


So we need more than just keeping the body from degenerating. We need
to find a way to stop the brain tissue from shrinking with age.


BillK


From test at ssec.wisc.edu  Mon Sep 22 17:27:43 2014
From: test at ssec.wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 12:27:43 -0500 (CDT)
Subject: [ExI] Searle's review of Bostrom's book
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1411387201.26502.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.1.1411387201.26502.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.SOC.4.64.1409221206050.22450@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>

Sure Tim.

Merriam-Webster defines "pose" as "to set forth
or offer for attention or consideration" so I
think it's OK to say:

   Computers that can run the entire world economy and
   provide constant companionship to all humans will
   pose great danger to humans.

This does not say these computers will harm humans,
only that we need to give the possibility some
attention or consideration.

I also have never said that humanity should
forego AI, only that there are dangers. Like
you seem to, I think the development of AI is
an imperative.

Here's an op-ed I submitted, unsuccessfully,
to the NY Times in August 2010, also in reaction
to suggestions that AI isn't a big threat:

http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/g/hibbard_oped_aug2010.html

Best wishes,
Bill

> Date: Sun, 21 Sep 2014 06:32:20 -0400
> From: Tim Tyler <tim at tt1.org>
> To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Searle's review of Bostrom's book
> Message-ID: <541EA934.6030205 at tt1.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> On 20/09/2014 08:18, Bill Hibbard wrote:
>
>> http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/g/searle_comment.pdf
>
> Searle is completely confused (news at eleven).  However Bill's
> commentary says:
>
> "Computers that can run the entire world economy and provide constant
>  companionship to all humans will pose great danger to humans."
>
> This is speculation. Computers powerful enough to run the entire
> world economy could have the *potential* to pose great danger
> to humans.
>
> However, humans are already at risk. Unless we develop
> superintelligent machines we'll all be obliterated.
>
> Superintelligent machines are surely likely to *reduce*
> the chance of this happening.  IMO, the sooner we develop
> them, the safer we will be.
>
> What are the alternatives? A big war that keeps us stuck
> in the stone age? A luddite totalitarian government that
> criminalizes research and doesn't perform any itself?
> Are these alternatives *really* any safer?  Or would it
> be fair to say that they "pose great danger to humans".
> -- 
> __________
>  |im |yler http://timtyler.org/ tim at tt1lock.org Remove lock to reply.


From tim at tt1.org  Tue Sep 23 02:25:17 2014
From: tim at tt1.org (Tim Tyler)
Date: Mon, 22 Sep 2014 22:25:17 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Searle's review of Bostrom's book
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOC.4.64.1409221206050.22450@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
References: <mailman.1.1411387201.26502.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <Pine.SOC.4.64.1409221206050.22450@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
Message-ID: <5420DA0D.5020106@tt1.org>

On 22/09/2014 13:27, Bill Hibbard wrote:

 > Here's an op-ed I submitted, unsuccessfully,
 > to the NY Times in August 2010, also in reaction
 > to suggestions that AI isn't a big threat:
 >
 > http://www.ssec.wisc.edu/~billh/g/hibbard_oped_aug2010.html

I also though that the 2009 Interim Report from the Presidential
Panel on Long Term AI Futures was a disappointing document.
Presumably, the people in the government who understand the
situation are at the NSA, IARPA - and other similar organisations.

Kurzweil, I think, acknowledges that there are risks and drawbacks.

Lanier's views in this area don't seem worth citing.

Whether it is better to be calming or alarmist depends somewhat on
on whether the overall climate is overly calm or overly alarmist.

The current situation seems to be OK - w.r.t. paranoia-levels.
However, we do seem to be lacking "bums on seats". Not enough
people are interested. IMO, it should be a more crowded field.
-- 
__________
  |im |yler  http://timtyler.org/  tim at tt1lock.org  Remove lock to reply.



From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue Sep 23 16:08:05 2014
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 10:08:05 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Brains grow and shrink like 'rainbows' as we age
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armj02dW+1GBZovrsc9xTJx1kDnK_o_dkCc6ps+Y90va20g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armj02dW+1GBZovrsc9xTJx1kDnK_o_dkCc6ps+Y90va20g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8Rwa8qpAnT2oc-g_oWESG9hdvvw0UNU3v8cQhWxZLp=RKag@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:06 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> Nerve bundles in the brain increase in volume until we turn 40 and
> then--like the rest of our body--slowly start to deteriorate. By the end
> of our lives, the tissue in our brain is about the volume of a
> 7-year-old child.  (Yikes!!).
>

How do they expect not to have age related job discrimination when research
keeps coming up with stuff like this?

-Kelly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140923/d5df391c/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 23 16:16:40 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:16:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Brains grow and shrink like 'rainbows' as we age
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8Rwa8qpAnT2oc-g_oWESG9hdvvw0UNU3v8cQhWxZLp=RKag@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armj02dW+1GBZovrsc9xTJx1kDnK_o_dkCc6ps+Y90va20g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa8qpAnT2oc-g_oWESG9hdvvw0UNU3v8cQhWxZLp=RKag@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <008d01cfd749$c31b3b80$4951b280$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:08 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] Brains grow and shrink like 'rainbows' as we age

 

On Mon, Sep 22, 2014 at 11:06 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

Nerve bundles in the brain increase in volume until we turn 40 and
then--like the rest of our body--slowly start to deteriorate. By the end
of our lives, the tissue in our brain is about the volume of a
7-year-old child.  (Yikes!!).

 

How do they expect not to have age related job discrimination when research keeps coming up with stuff like this?

 

-Kelly

 

 

 

They don?t expect to not have age related job discrimination.  I expect age related job discrimination.

 

What surprises me is that with all the cool stuff we have figured out as a species, we still haven?t invented a way to make a rainbow go up at the ends instead of down.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140923/d41c49b6/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 23 16:27:50 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 09:27:50 -0700
Subject: [ExI] rain "bow" was RE: Brains grow and shrink like 'rainbows' as
	we age
Message-ID: <00b301cfd74b$525fe8d0$f71fba70$@att.net>


Subject: Re: [ExI] Brains grow and shrink like 'rainbows' as we age

 

 

>?What surprises me is that with all the cool stuff we have figured out as a species, we still haven?t invented a way to make a rainbow go up at the ends instead of down?.spike

 

 

Furthermore, why do we call it a rainbow?  You never saw one shaped like a bow, did ya?  Granted it would be way cool if you did.  You know what you would be saying:  That?s it, no more drugs, gotta stop forthwith, this is just too crazy, etc.

 

So why don?t we call it a rain arc, or a rain parabola, or perhaps a rain y=-x^2 or something?

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140923/76ba4f0d/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Sep 23 16:42:24 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 17:42:24 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Brains grow and shrink like 'rainbows' as we age
In-Reply-To: <008d01cfd749$c31b3b80$4951b280$@att.net>
References: <CAL_armj02dW+1GBZovrsc9xTJx1kDnK_o_dkCc6ps+Y90va20g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa8qpAnT2oc-g_oWESG9hdvvw0UNU3v8cQhWxZLp=RKag@mail.gmail.com>
 <008d01cfd749$c31b3b80$4951b280$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armiJjo80xrN6FGsVYWyQ72gXpXvsaZ0U9W11msa1hL8K9g@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 5:16 PM, spike wrote:
> They don't expect to not have age related job discrimination.  I expect age
> related job discrimination.
>
> What surprises me is that with all the cool stuff we have figured out as a
> species, we still haven't invented a way to make a rainbow go up at the ends
> instead of down.
>

Luckily (!?) all the jobs available to humans are rapidly being
de-skilled by AI and robots.
The low-paid jobs left won't require much brainpower.
(But we'll all be busy playing with our iPhones anyway, so it won't worry us).

BillK


From odellhuff2 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 23 16:44:23 2014
From: odellhuff2 at gmail.com (Odell Huff)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:44:23 -0400
Subject: [ExI] rain "bow" was RE: Brains grow and shrink like 'rainbows'
 as we age
In-Reply-To: <00b301cfd74b$525fe8d0$f71fba70$@att.net>
References: <00b301cfd74b$525fe8d0$f71fba70$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CACsUujWdGY9T5b1Yi3GBM0zkj=5=MEUJ5KeR61Nj8k946Gq4SA@mail.gmail.com>

Aren't all rainbows perfect circles, only some of which is usually visible?
A rain "circle segment."

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 12:27 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Brains grow and shrink like 'rainbows' as we age
>
>
>
>
>
> >?What surprises me is that with all the cool stuff we have figured out
> as a species, we still haven?t invented a way to make a rainbow go up at
> the ends instead of down?.spike
>
>
>
>
>
> Furthermore, why do we call it a rainbow?  You never saw one shaped like a
> bow, did ya?  Granted it would be way cool if you did.  You know what you
> would be saying:  That?s it, no more drugs, gotta stop forthwith, this is
> just too crazy, etc.
>
>
>
> So why don?t we call it a rain arc, or a rain parabola, or perhaps a rain
> y=-x^2 or something?
>
>
>
> spike
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140923/1b7167dc/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Sep 23 17:03:31 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 18:03:31 +0100
Subject: [ExI] rain "bow" was RE: Brains grow and shrink like 'rainbows'
 as we age
In-Reply-To: <00b301cfd74b$525fe8d0$f71fba70$@att.net>
References: <00b301cfd74b$525fe8d0$f71fba70$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armjOaz8i5kH_odXRyK3y-oayorauewtEy3DptcX3TfAPyA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 5:27 PM, spike wrote:
> Furthermore, why do we call it a rainbow?  You never saw one shaped like a
> bow, did ya?  Granted it would be way cool if you did.  You know what you
> would be saying:  That's it, no more drugs, gotta stop forthwith, this is
> just too crazy, etc.
>
> So why don't we call it a rain arc, or a rain parabola, or perhaps a rain
> y=-x^2 or something?
>


That's exactly what they did! :)

The word comes from from Proto-Germanic *regnabug? ("rainbow"),
equivalent to rain + bow ("arch").
'bow' originally meant any curved shape. like an arch or early simple bows.

BillK



From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 23 17:09:22 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 10:09:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] rain "bow" was RE: Brains grow and shrink like 'rainbows'
	as we age
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armjOaz8i5kH_odXRyK3y-oayorauewtEy3DptcX3TfAPyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00b301cfd74b$525fe8d0$f71fba70$@att.net>
 <CAL_armjOaz8i5kH_odXRyK3y-oayorauewtEy3DptcX3TfAPyA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <014a01cfd751$1fe66770$5fb33650$@att.net>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf
Of BillK
Sent: Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:04 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] rain "bow" was RE: Brains grow and shrink like 'rainbows'
as we age

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 5:27 PM, spike wrote:
> Furthermore, why do we call it a rainbow?  You never saw one shaped 
> like a bow, did ya?  ...
>
> So why don't we call it a rain arc, or a rain parabola, or perhaps a 
> rain y=-x^2 or something?
>


>That's exactly what they did! :)

>The word comes from from Proto-Germanic *regnabug? ("rainbow"), equivalent
to rain + bow ("arch").
'bow' originally meant any curved shape. like an arch or early simple bows.

>BillK

_______________________________________________


Ja, well I still like the term rain (a)y = -x^2 + b.  Then you would have
the coordinates of the pots of gold.  I don't know if there are two pots or
only one, but with current gold prices, one would likely suffice.

spike




From atymes at gmail.com  Tue Sep 23 17:52:03 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 10:52:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Brains grow and shrink like 'rainbows' as we age
In-Reply-To: <008d01cfd749$c31b3b80$4951b280$@att.net>
References: <CAL_armj02dW+1GBZovrsc9xTJx1kDnK_o_dkCc6ps+Y90va20g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8Rwa8qpAnT2oc-g_oWESG9hdvvw0UNU3v8cQhWxZLp=RKag@mail.gmail.com>
 <008d01cfd749$c31b3b80$4951b280$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNSzD23xUCJVAuPnG+0zy2pGLJFLaKwy7EHXeHyO87ZAfw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sep 23, 2014 9:32 AM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> What surprises me is that with all the cool stuff we have figured out as
a species, we still haven?t invented a way to make a rainbow go up at the
ends instead of down.

Sure we have.  I've even seen them go around in complete loops.  It has to
be on the ground - as in below your eyes - though.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140923/335f8cfd/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Sep 23 21:06:00 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 22:06:00 +0100
Subject: [ExI] India and China signed a high speed train deal.
Message-ID: <CAL_armhN765QjUV39g1_mopPywKK9zy7XgdjA=cP-sevpE=fxQ@mail.gmail.com>

Next Big Future has a post about India high speed rail.
<http://nextbigfuture.com/2014/09/japan-and-china-are-competing-for.html>

The India and China deal includes:
* Increasing speed on existing lines: Chennai-Bangalore-Mysore section
has been identified for increasing speed to 160 kph with cooperation
from China.
------------

China seems to be cornering the world market on high speed rail.

But what boggles my mind is the films I've seen showing the India
railway system.
Their trains have people hanging out the doors and windows and riding
on the carriage roof.
The stations are swarming with people walking backwards and forwards
across the lines.
Animals wander across the country lines. It's all chaos.

Putting a high speed train in the middle of all that would be exciting.

Although I do like the image of people desperately hanging on to the
roof of 100 mph trains.  :)


BillK


From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 23 21:52:50 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 14:52:50 -0700
Subject: [ExI] India and China signed a high speed train deal.
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armhN765QjUV39g1_mopPywKK9zy7XgdjA=cP-sevpE=fxQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armhN765QjUV39g1_mopPywKK9zy7XgdjA=cP-sevpE=fxQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <02b701cfd778$b953adb0$2bfb0910$@att.net>



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

>...Putting a high speed train in the middle of all that would be exciting.

>...Although I do like the image of people desperately hanging on to the
roof of 100 mph trains.  :)  BillK
_______________________________________________


It could be done.  Many of us have hung onto a motorcycle at 100 mph.  I
wouldn't want to try to cling to a smooth surface at that speed, but it
wouldn't be that hard if they gave them something to grasp.  Bugs
reeeeaaallly hurt when you hit them at that speed.  On second thought, they
don't feel a thing.  But the prole who hit the bug hurts and gets covered in
a gooey mess.

spike



From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Wed Sep 24 04:04:56 2014
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 21:04:56 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Searle's review of Bostrom's book
In-Reply-To: <Pine.SOC.4.64.1409221206050.22450@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
References: <mailman.1.1411387201.26502.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
 <Pine.SOC.4.64.1409221206050.22450@sarah.ssec.wisc.edu>
Message-ID: <1411531496.64969.YahooMailNeo@web161604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Bill, I believe the connotation for "pose" might be a bit strong than the dictionary definition. It might have been less irksome to some readers had you used "might pose" rather than "will pose."

Tim, I believe the popular images of AI gone wild doesn't seem to be part of the "clerisy" discussion. In the latter, the views seem to mostly fall, from my experience, into either the "it's impossible, so no worries" or the "it's possible, but AI will be friendly and attentive servants" camps. Maybe my experience is not wide enough. I haven't done surveys. But it's the general feeling I get about AI among the more thoughtful folks.

 
Regards, 

Dan 
 My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," is now available at: 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
 (It's set in Seattle, if that's any help.:)



From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Wed Sep 24 04:08:26 2014
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 21:08:26 -0700
Subject: [ExI] rain "bow" was RE: Brains grow and shrink like 'rainbows'
	as	we age
In-Reply-To: <00b301cfd74b$525fe8d0$f71fba70$@att.net>
References: <00b301cfd74b$525fe8d0$f71fba70$@att.net>
Message-ID: <1411531706.22274.YahooMailNeo@web161603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 9:44 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>?What surprises me is that with all the cool stuff we have figured
>> out as a species, we still haven?t invented a way to make a rainbow
>> go up at the ends instead of down?.spike
>
> Furthermore, why do we call it a rainbow?  You never saw one shaped
> like a bow, did ya?  Granted it would be way cool if you did.  You
> know what you would be saying:  That?s it, no more drugs, gotta stop
> forthwith, this is just too crazy, etc.
>
> So why don?t we call it a rain arc, or a rain parabola, or perhaps
> a rain y=-x^2 or something?

Rainbow is a decent metaphor in my view. But why call it a rain-thing and not just a light-thing?

Then again, maybe I'm the odd man out here, but I don't particularly find rainbows beautiful or even cool. They look annoying to me. :)

Regards, 

Dan 
 My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," is now available at: 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
 (It's set in Seattle, if that whets your appetite for my story.:)




From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Wed Sep 24 04:11:44 2014
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 21:11:44 -0700
Subject: [ExI] rain "bow" was RE: Brains grow and shrink like 'rainbows'
	as we age
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armjOaz8i5kH_odXRyK3y-oayorauewtEy3DptcX3TfAPyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00b301cfd74b$525fe8d0$f71fba70$@att.net>
 <CAL_armjOaz8i5kH_odXRyK3y-oayorauewtEy3DptcX3TfAPyA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1411531904.89332.YahooMailNeo@web161602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:03 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's exactly what they did! :)
>
> The word comes from from Proto-Germanic *regnabug? ("rainbow"),
> equivalent to rain + bow ("arch").
> 'bow' originally meant any curved shape. like an arch or early simple bows.

Oh, so the usage goes the other way: bows -- as in a bow to launch arrows -- is really a specialization of that more general word for a shape. Interesting.

 
Regards, 

Dan 
 My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," is now available at: 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
 (Takes place in Seattle and is not science fictiony.)



From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Wed Sep 24 04:11:57 2014
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 21:11:57 -0700
Subject: [ExI] rain "bow" was RE: Brains grow and shrink like 'rainbows'
	as we age
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armjOaz8i5kH_odXRyK3y-oayorauewtEy3DptcX3TfAPyA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00b301cfd74b$525fe8d0$f71fba70$@att.net>
 <CAL_armjOaz8i5kH_odXRyK3y-oayorauewtEy3DptcX3TfAPyA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1411531917.88483.YahooMailNeo@web161605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:03 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's exactly what they did! :)
>
> The word comes from from Proto-Germanic *regnabug? ("rainbow"),
> equivalent to rain + bow ("arch").
> 'bow' originally meant any curved shape. like an arch or early simple bows.

Oh, so the usage goes the other way: bows -- as in a bow to launch arrows -- is really a specialization of that more general word for a shape. Interesting.

 
Regards, 

Dan 
 My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," is now available at: 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
 (Takes place in Seattle and is not science fictiony.)



From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Wed Sep 24 04:24:39 2014
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 21:24:39 -0700
Subject: [ExI] rain "bow" was RE: Brains grow and shrink like 'rainbows'
	as	we age
In-Reply-To: <00b301cfd74b$525fe8d0$f71fba70$@att.net>
References: <00b301cfd74b$525fe8d0$f71fba70$@att.net> 
Message-ID: <1411532679.90747.YahooMailNeo@web161605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:03 AM, BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:
> That's exactly what they did! :)
>
> The word comes from from Proto-Germanic *regnabug? ("rainbow"),
> equivalent to rain + bow ("arch").
> 'bow' originally meant any curved shape. like an arch or early simple bows.

Oh, so it goes the other way: bows -- as in a bow to launch arrows -- is really a specialization of that more general word for a shape. Interesting.
 
Regards,

Dan
 My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," is now available at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
 (Takes place in Seattle and is not science fictiony.)



From tara at taramayastales.com  Wed Sep 24 05:14:01 2014
From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya)
Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2014 22:14:01 -0700
Subject: [ExI] rain "bow" was RE: Brains grow and shrink like 'rainbows'
	as	we age
In-Reply-To: <1411532679.90747.YahooMailNeo@web161605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <00b301cfd74b$525fe8d0$f71fba70$@att.net>
 <1411532679.90747.YahooMailNeo@web161605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <B9E482B7-E8FD-4EE7-A260-AAA2C16C4A05@taramayastales.com>

I think they had many less words in their language and were much less precise with terms than anyone in this group would approve. I also suspect that word usage went from concrete to abstract, not abstract to concrete -- so the general shape came from the thing used daily, the arch from the bow. 

Historically, peaceful applications of arches in architecture came after bows and arrows had been used for quite a while in more sanguinary pursuits.

Tara Maya
Blog  |  Twitter  |  Facebook  |  Amazon  |  Goodreads



On Sep 23, 2014, at 9:24 PM, Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:

>> 
>> The word comes from from Proto-Germanic *regnabug? ("rainbow"),
>> equivalent to rain + bow ("arch").
>> 'bow' originally meant any curved shape. like an arch or early simple bows.
> 
> Oh, so it goes the other way: bows -- as in a bow to launch arrows -- is really a specialization of that more general word for a shape. Interesting.




From danust2012 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 24 16:57:46 2014
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:57:46 -0700
Subject: [ExI] The origin of Uranus and Neptune revisited
Message-ID: <C09F371F-07A1-431E-8ABB-04FCC67123FA@gmail.com>

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/09/140923101538.htm

Regards,

Dan
 My latest Kindle book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
 (Set in Seattle, if that might interest any of you.;)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140924/8c5c3ecd/attachment.html>

From js_exi at gnolls.org  Wed Sep 24 16:47:10 2014
From: js_exi at gnolls.org (J. Stanton)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 09:47:10 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Neurodegeneration and aging
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1411560001.22739.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.1.1411560001.22739.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <5422F58E.6080303@gnolls.org>


For those who wonder why and how brains degenerate with aging, and what 
one might be able to do about it, this misleadingly URLed article 
provides some clues:

"Neuron fuel and function"
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2014/07/in-comments-following-previous-post.html

JS
http://www.gnolls.org


From danust2012 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 24 19:56:14 2014
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 12:56:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Lessons from Tesla?
References: <1411588507.11737.YahooMailNeo@web161604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <F2F32CAE-4911-41CC-B41A-C18F9561C3A5@gmail.com>

To me, perhaps based on ignorance, it seems Tesla is used to score many points these days -- well, for as long as I can remember though more so in the last five years -- regarding unrewarded or underrated genius and whether someone is a crackpot. To me, much of this seems like a source inspiration that at its best might encourage some to keep trying (to invent, explore, build, succeed) or to give those who they currently doubt (the inventors, explorers, dreamers, etc. who have not yet succeeded) a fair shake. That's all well and good, but I fear it's become cliche and all too often just an excuse not to think critically -- sort of like the view that Einstein was shut out of the scientific community (he wasn't exactly, but so goes the popular story) yet came up with brilliant and widely accepted ideas. That does inspire some, but it also seem to shut off critical thinking in others.

Now, that said, I don't know that there's a foolproof formula to decide what ideas or inspirations lead to success or that anyone can know the costs ahead of time of following or not following a certain lead. What do the rest of you think? Does the Tesla icon provide enough positive benefits to outweigh what I believe are its misleading aspects?

Regards, 

Dan 
"Born With Teeth," my latest story, is now available at: 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
It's set in Seattle and you can preview it on the site.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140924/3b4ce73c/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Wed Sep 24 20:48:57 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 22:48:57 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Lessons from Tesla?
In-Reply-To: <F2F32CAE-4911-41CC-B41A-C18F9561C3A5@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2841860371-5520@secure.ericade.net>

Dan <danust2012 at gmail.com> , 24/9/2014 10:00 PM:
Now, that said, I don't know that there's a foolproof formula to decide what ideas or inspirations lead to success or that anyone can know the costs ahead of time of following or not following a certain lead. What do the rest of you think? Does the Tesla icon provide enough positive benefits to outweigh what I believe are its misleading aspects?

I am pretty tired of Tesla hype. Yes, he was awesome and quirky, but the one main reason he failed seems to have been lack of business sense.
The standard crackpot claim is "They laughed at Galileo!" (to which the rejoinder is: "And Bozo the clown.") Many people seem to think that science and technology runs on convictions. Sure, we *need* those convictions to succeed, but having them is no guarantee ideas are good. In fact, since most ideas are bad, not ruthlessly weeding out the weaker ones means that the end result is likely failure: being always convinced you are right is the road to delusion.?
Success requires several factors, and conviction and genius are just the dramatic ones. It is the boring ones - business sense, the ability to explain ideas, running teams - that people tend to underestimate when they enjoy their icons too much.?

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140924/d1962853/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Wed Sep 24 21:45:56 2014
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 14:45:56 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Lessons from Tesla?
In-Reply-To: <2841860371-5520@secure.ericade.net>
References: <2841860371-5520@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <8FE051D0-3C76-4CDE-A238-E1174F77D6D8@gmail.com>

Anders wrote:

> The standard crackpot claim is "They laughed at Galileo!" (to which
> the rejoinder is: "And Bozo the clown.")

In the same vein as the parenthetic comment, someone once quipped that they laughed at him when he said he would become a Twitter comedian and then asked, "Well, who's laughing now?!" :)

Regarding your other comments, much in agreement. I think some (most? all?) people need some encouragement to stick to something -- to try to implement the various elements needed for success in any field. But I've seen many people doggedly go on until total failure. My fear would be that the Tesla icon might fuel "stick-to-it-ness" to the point of utter ruin. 

Regards,

Dan
 My latest Kindle book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
 (You can preview it on the site.)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140924/df7da82d/attachment.html>

From msd001 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 25 01:13:34 2014
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Wed, 24 Sep 2014 21:13:34 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Lessons from Tesla?
In-Reply-To: <8FE051D0-3C76-4CDE-A238-E1174F77D6D8@gmail.com>
References: <2841860371-5520@secure.ericade.net>
 <8FE051D0-3C76-4CDE-A238-E1174F77D6D8@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdbJ6yT+DPoi6ShHDZL+5f_+ag5iZqNatLZLHurKDJuKSOw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sep 24, 2014 5:46 PM, "Dan" <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
field. But I've seen many people doggedly go on until total failure. My
fear would be that the Tesla icon might fuel "stick-to-it-ness" to the
point of utter ruin.

I think of "Tesla icon" as a capital letter T slightly bent to resemble a
pick or a hammer - something reminiscent of industrial revolution but with
a modern comic book reboot treatment.  You know, to make a statement that
renewable electric cars can be cool.

They've done a better job branding Tesla than Tesla ever did. :)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140924/8826179d/attachment.html>

From protokol2020 at gmail.com  Thu Sep 25 06:15:35 2014
From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 08:15:35 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Lessons from Tesla?
In-Reply-To: <CAOJFdbJ6yT+DPoi6ShHDZL+5f_+ag5iZqNatLZLHurKDJuKSOw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <2841860371-5520@secure.ericade.net>
 <8FE051D0-3C76-4CDE-A238-E1174F77D6D8@gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbJ6yT+DPoi6ShHDZL+5f_+ag5iZqNatLZLHurKDJuKSOw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALMrAFTxWP8oBygOd-x46scEJ0NXvy8KraFy4zVoEXX_Zk+zMg@mail.gmail.com>

In the end, the AC of Tesla is going to go away, the DC of Edison will
prevail.After more than a century, Edison is to be right.

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 3:13 AM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:

>
> On Sep 24, 2014 5:46 PM, "Dan" <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
> field. But I've seen many people doggedly go on until total failure. My
> fear would be that the Tesla icon might fuel "stick-to-it-ness" to the
> point of utter ruin.
>
> I think of "Tesla icon" as a capital letter T slightly bent to resemble a
> pick or a hammer - something reminiscent of industrial revolution but with
> a modern comic book reboot treatment.  You know, to make a statement that
> renewable electric cars can be cool.
>
> They've done a better job branding Tesla than Tesla ever did. :)
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>


-- 
https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140925/d6b0ad1f/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Thu Sep 25 18:11:39 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 11:11:39 -0700
Subject: [ExI] virgin galactic video
Message-ID: <016801cfd8ec$282441e0$786cc5a0$@att.net>

 

Although I freely admit this is wicked cool, I can't figure out what, if
anything, the hellllll the ATC was thinking, letting an experimental
aircraft fly this close to a passenger liner:

 

http://www.chonday.com/Videos/jegalctospc2

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140925/19770e6b/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Thu Sep 25 21:22:20 2014
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 14:22:20 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Lessons from Tesla?
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB5e-_f4EcG_iTEQst_GHzATYFx4gZLPHwW5oG8hCd-poQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:00 AM,  Tomaz Kristan <protokol2020 at gmail.com> wrote:

> In the end, the AC of Tesla is going to go away, the DC of Edison will
> prevail.After more than a century, Edison is to be right.

I sort of doubt it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

The penetration of DC customer service that's left in a few places
dates from a century ago.

Which gives you an idea  of how long these things take to change.

Keith


From pharos at gmail.com  Thu Sep 25 22:25:42 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 23:25:42 +0100
Subject: [ExI] virgin galactic video
In-Reply-To: <016801cfd8ec$282441e0$786cc5a0$@att.net>
References: <016801cfd8ec$282441e0$786cc5a0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armispDUno11m+yMEdGXyJbS=-oOQe2Dg3QJjE1KtFb-V2Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 7:11 PM, spike wrote:
> Although I freely admit this is wicked cool, I can't figure out what, if
> anything, the hellllll the ATC was thinking, letting an experimental
> aircraft fly this close to a passenger liner:
>
> http://www.chonday.com/Videos/jegalctospc2
>

Looks like it wasn't a commercial flight. (They have rules about that
sort of thing). :)
It was a Virgin PR flight and parallel landing.

See:
<http://boingboing.net/2011/04/06/flying-wing-to-wing.html>

Still cool tho.

BillK


From spike66 at att.net  Thu Sep 25 23:19:32 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2014 16:19:32 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Lessons from Tesla?
In-Reply-To: <CAPiwVB5e-_f4EcG_iTEQst_GHzATYFx4gZLPHwW5oG8hCd-poQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB5e-_f4EcG_iTEQst_GHzATYFx4gZLPHwW5oG8hCd-poQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00e301cfd917$2adee680$809cb380$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of Keith Henson
Subject: Re: [ExI] Lessons from Tesla?

On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:00 AM,  Tomaz Kristan <protokol2020 at gmail.com>
wrote:

>>... In the end, the AC of Tesla is going to go away, the DC of Edison will

> prevail.After more than a century, Edison is to be right.

>...I sort of doubt it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

The penetration of DC customer service that's left in a few places dates
from a century ago.

Which gives you an idea  of how long these things take to change.

Keith
_______________________________________________


AC and DC do two different things.  The question isn't AC or DC, it is more
about how we will use both.  In fact we do use both: our computers and ever
more now, our home lighting, uses DC.  Our home heating systems use AC to
run the air handling motors.  If we get all-electric cars, they operate on
DC.  To charge them with AC, we need to convert it, which is costly and
requires big capacitors.  We can imagine rooftop solar collectors charging
cars without ever going thru AC.  For long haul transmission of electric
power, AC works great.  

We will have both AC and DC for the foreseeable, assuming we build a lot
more generating capacity.

spike



From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 11:56:52 2014
From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 07:56:52 -0400
Subject: [ExI] India and China signed a high speed train deal.
In-Reply-To: <02b701cfd778$b953adb0$2bfb0910$@att.net>
References: <CAL_armhN765QjUV39g1_mopPywKK9zy7XgdjA=cP-sevpE=fxQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <02b701cfd778$b953adb0$2bfb0910$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAAc1gFjA=PpHVtOLKnFZZh=ESMgYcz--CHmwBSecUPQ5Xb43_g@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 5:52 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
> It could be done.  Many of us have hung onto a motorcycle at 100 mph.  I
> wouldn't want to try to cling to a smooth surface at that speed, but it
> wouldn't be that hard if they gave them something to grasp.  Bugs
> reeeeaaallly hurt when you hit them at that speed.  On second thought, they
> don't feel a thing.  But the prole who hit the bug hurts and gets covered
> in
> a gooey mess.


### The Mythbusters determined that a direct head hit by a bug can
decapitate (i.e. dislocate the cervical spine of) a motorbike rider under
plausible assumptions about bike speed and bug size. Their demonstrations
are very instructive and yes, gooey.

What is the largest bug you can encounter while hanging on to a train in
India? This could be a risky proposition.

 Rafal
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140926/c05fef14/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Fri Sep 26 13:22:25 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 15:22:25 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Happy Petrov Day!
Message-ID: <2988222180-25366@secure.ericade.net>

Almost a gigasecond ago, 31 years to the day, Stanislav Petrov choose to disregard warnings of an imminent nuclear attack, correctly guessing they were a computer error. By doing that he likely saved the world as we know it. Let's celebrate those who stand up to reduce existential risk!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Petrovhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_Soviet_nuclear_false_alarm_incidenthttp://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-24280831


Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140926/7695c1a2/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Fri Sep 26 13:35:08 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 15:35:08 +0200
Subject: [ExI] India and China signed a high speed train deal.
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFjA=PpHVtOLKnFZZh=ESMgYcz--CHmwBSecUPQ5Xb43_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <2988612748-25366@secure.ericade.net>

Rafal Smigrodzki?<rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com>?, 26/9/2014 2:01 PM:### The Mythbusters determined that a direct head hit by a bug can decapitate (i.e. dislocate the cervical spine of) a motorbike rider under plausible assumptions about bike speed and bug size. Their demonstrations are very instructive and yes, gooey.?
What is the largest bug you can encounter while hanging on to a train in India? This could be a risky
Chalcosoma atlas males are?6.0?13 centimetres:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlas_beetlehttp://www.objectlessons.org/natural-world-earth/atlas-beetle/s89/a221/They are lighter than Goliath beetles, so I would estimate about 77 grams or so given posts I have read. Unwieldy fliers likely to bump into things. Ouch.?
Of course, the actual situation in India is a fair bit different from the media images we get, since they tend to drag 20 years behind. There is a difference between trains and trains.?
Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140926/fbd6c504/attachment.html>

From msd001 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 18:25:27 2014
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:25:27 -0400
Subject: [ExI] India and China signed a high speed train deal.
In-Reply-To: <CAAc1gFjA=PpHVtOLKnFZZh=ESMgYcz--CHmwBSecUPQ5Xb43_g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAL_armhN765QjUV39g1_mopPywKK9zy7XgdjA=cP-sevpE=fxQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <02b701cfd778$b953adb0$2bfb0910$@att.net>
 <CAAc1gFjA=PpHVtOLKnFZZh=ESMgYcz--CHmwBSecUPQ5Xb43_g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdb+Deq9hn6RcLbPt27ADZce-6kyw2EahchhWecaD_6bhug@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 7:56 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki
<rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote:
> ### The Mythbusters determined that a direct head hit by a bug can
> decapitate (i.e. dislocate the cervical spine of) a motorbike rider under
> plausible assumptions about bike speed and bug size. Their demonstrations
> are very instructive and yes, gooey.
>
> What is the largest bug you can encounter while hanging on to a train in
> India? This could be a risky proposition.

Or a griefer with a rock.  Though I guess this risk is no greater than
any other griefer-based risk.


From max at maxmore.com  Fri Sep 26 21:36:08 2014
From: max at maxmore.com (Max More)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 14:36:08 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Alcor membership reaches 1000
Message-ID: <CAJX-7wXnPWwT6TF88EgKrzLJZVydN2TOhQshx1rtmkeGyA1NiQ@mail.gmail.com>

On September 24, 2014, Alcor?s membership reached 1000 for the first time.
This is the first time any cryonics organization has had this many members
with full financial and contractual arrangements for cryopreservation.
(Counting all classes of members, total membership is 1255.)

This represents a tiny fraction of the population of the United States and
an even smaller fraction of global population. Alcor and other cryonics
organizations have a very long way to go until they have persuaded a
substantial portion of the population to make cryonics arrangements. Even
so, this is a milestone worth noting and celebrating.


I suspect there are a fair number of people on this email list who accept
that cryonics makes sense but haven't yet taken practical action. Let me
point out the easy, inexpensive, and important step of Associate Membership:


http://alcor.org/BecomeMember/associate.html

-- 
Max More, PhD
Strategic Philosopher
Co-editor, *The Transhumanist Reader*
http://www.amazon.com/Transhumanist-Reader-Contemporary-Technology-Philosophy/dp/1118334310/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1372225570&sr=1-1&keywords=the+transhumanist+reader
President & CEO, Alcor Life Extension Foundation
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140926/5655bc26/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 23:47:49 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 18:47:49 -0500
Subject: [ExI] European privacy versus free speech; Google
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEYKSzxDJAjwQ9jw4Ei9voCVHytajx1=aePaDfdAag8UZw@mail.gmail.com>

Published as "The Solace of Oblivion" in the New Yorker. (in case the link
doesn't work)  bill w

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/29/solace-oblivion?%20utm_source=tny&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weeklyemail&mbid=nl_092914_Weekly&CUST_ID=20203782&spMailingID=7157616&spUserID=MjczNzc0NzI5OTkS1&spJobID=522868122&spReportId=NTIyODY4MTIyS0
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140926/604c5ef8/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Fri Sep 26 23:50:21 2014
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 16:50:21 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
References: <1411775089.88488.YahooMailNeo@web161603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <C9F3BD64-5AFA-45EF-A3A4-F080BD0384DF@gmail.com>

[Sorry for double posting, but my yahoo posts to this list are often rejected as spam.]

This is one of my recent salvos in a discussion Nick's book -- or a review of it -- touched off on the Yahoo group LeftLibertarian2. I thought it might be of interest. The other person referred to is Jeff Olson, an active member of that group who's also published a novel dealing with AI.

By the way, do you any of you have any comments to make on what I call the "core argument" for strong AI? (Scroll down, it's near the end.)


Dan 

On Friday, September 26, 2014 3:08 PM, "Dan dan_ust at yahoo.com[LeftLibertarian2]" <LeftLibertarian2 at yahoogroups.com> wrote:

[Snip] The actual way to demonstrate something is not logically impossible, is to show that nothing on a priori grounds makes it impossible. This doesn't mean, by the way, that one might not be mistaken -- perhaps overlooked some aspect of something that would make it impossible. But then the mistake wouldn't be with someone's overall view of possibility as such, but with the specific case being ill defined rather than poor logic.

To put it pithily as possible: not being [able] to rule something as impossible is the definition of it being possible. (It doesn't, however, tell us anything about it's likelihood. Again, in common parlance, people often use "possible" to mean something that has a vanishingly small likelihood -- as if there were a scale of possible < likely/probable < actual/necessary. But possible as we're discussing it here really just means something is not impossible and only tells us that the likelihood or probability (which are [sometimes] distinguished) is not zero -- just like impossible only tells us they are zero.)

Now you could make an argument that if someone holds there's no demonstration of logical impossibility that this implies logical necessity. That would be an error in modal logic as I understand it. That something's logically necessary, of course, implies it's not logically impossible, but the reverse is not so. For instance, it's logically possible that a third party candidate can win the US presidential race in 2016. (Okay, it's probably more likely that machines will not only start thinking, but becomes our friends too in the same year.:) But that this is possible doesn't mean it's necessary (or inevitable, as I think it might be put in temporal modal logic).

But let me go further than this. I think the case can be made that those arguing for strong AI (the usual term for what you call "True AI" or "Actual AI"; just want to avoid multiplying terms here for what I feel are the same notion) are not merely arguing that their concept is not a priori nonsense, but that it's nomologically possible -- in the sense that it fits what they believe are the known laws of nature. Again, recall the argument I offered for their core argument:

1. Intelligence supervenes on a physical process in biological brain.

2. That physical process can be made to happen in something other than a biological brain.

3. When you have done this you have made an artificial intelligence.

Assuming there's no flaw in this (again, rather loose) argument's "logic," it seems the easiest way to attack it is to show either be shown to be wrong by either showing that intelligence doesn't supervene on physical processes (even allowing Roderick's "quibble") or that it does but can't happen in anything other than a biological brain (or a biological entity). In other words, to either refute physicalism (which, again, does have its serious critics) or to refute multiple realizability (in some form; there's a growing literature on this, but, like physicalism, multiple realizability has its serious critics too). I don't either falls prey to your attack.

I'll go one further. I've met AI enthusiasts who posit strong AI is an empirical claim which they believe will be proved true in the next few decades. (Long enough for many of us to be dead, I take, so no egg on their face if their wrong -- unless you want to pull them out their cryo-tanks and smear it on them:). But they admit it might not come to pass. Is that a reasonable or unreasonable position for them to hold?

And my guess is some of the strong AI types who would go further than this -- seeing it as inevitable -- should they live long enough and not see it come to pass will, no doubt, change their minds. (Just like, I trust, should strong AI really come about, you'll change yours.)

Regards, 

Dan
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140926/4210efb0/attachment.html>

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Fri Sep 26 23:44:49 2014
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 16:44:49 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
In-Reply-To: <1411769280.43806.YahooMailNeo@web161605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1410560744.2227.YahooMailNeo@web161601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>	<CAOmnAOyakuWSQAk75Pn9-c5XoMhkJguTr1NjxT_PAR6gV3ks6w@mail.gmail.com>	<CABgRZOQGAnEf2Gn_s+aj0Eg=+v3bGUHFwHSgnp=TRR0P9m5aQw@mail.gmail.com>	<4F68ADC7-B556-4A29-B1D9-815758A995E6@gmail.com>	<CABgRZOQ0baupN93foS+T9hsS+X4HjcKK_5vGkAHDvHnwnvxOrg@mail.gmail.com>	<92A9EAE3-1E2E-42E1-88C9-2661FA91DA82@gmail.com>	<CABgRZORdAtcX1njsttFB=TeXktbtNQE7fYndKsbNTG+ADc4CWw@mail.gmail.com>	<CABgRZOSPr=i4uD16Pru0c4_RieuEfOpfSz7OemNxKDXY5Q1oVg@mail.gmail.com>	<F69B172C-6564-41BB-B0E6-72CB70AD2CD5@gmail.com>	<CABgRZOQ2vWpBHFQG12xbbTRpSXy3NbGON74tAcP5C7xcQVBBxg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAOmnAOyxcE=1qx=4yLeeqAybTHvawaPLk0sp7eKkWYrgGh7O8g@mail.gmail.com>	<CABgRZOSgiaPMM30UDMU6tD14ORjZzvK8hYSNS+N1RUirXM5JaA@mail.gmail.com>	<1411676302.219.YahooMailNeo@web161604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>	<CABgRZOR84DWXhr+++t=CC-i_bfa=meYiXxA-qRUEpad4pm+dJw@mail.gmail.com>	<CABgRZOQzCVKPhKb=ds-ZHuBjYOo=sXahEAytBtO=DAtkAT3H0Q@mail.gmail.com>	<CABgRZOTv1GN8tqis=DysMffD+157TSgfPnbzheLM9tJbx1OWxQ@mail.gmail.com>	<1411690860.1023.YahooMailNeo@web161604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CABgRZOTn-h_5uKCN3E=r+VyxYdDjqMtO_2-nFo9BSD4JXbQfpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411769280.43806.YahooMailNeo@web161605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <1411775089.88488.YahooMailNeo@web161603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

This is one of my recent salvos in a discussion Nick's book -- or a review of it -- touched off on the Yahoo group LeftLibertarian2. I thought it might be of interest. The other person referred to is Jeff Olson, an active member of that group who's also published a novel dealing with AI.

By the way, do you any of you have any comments to make on what I call the "core argument" for strong AI? (Scroll down, it's near the end.)


Dan 

On Friday, September 26, 2014 3:08 PM, "Dan dan_ust at yahoo.com [LeftLibertarian2]" <LeftLibertarian2 at yahoogroups.com> wrote:

[Snip] The actual way to demonstrate something is not logically impossible, is to show that nothing on a priori grounds makes it impossible. This doesn't mean, by the way, that one might not be mistaken -- perhaps overlooked some aspect of something that would make it impossible. But then the mistake wouldn't be with someone's overall view of possibility as such, but with the specific case being ill defined rather than poor logic.

To put it pithily as possible: not being [able] to rule something as impossible is the definition of it being possible. (It doesn't, however, tell us anything about it's likelihood. Again, in common parlance, people often use "possible" to mean something that has a vanishingly small likelihood -- as if there were a scale of possible < likely/probable < actual/necessary. But possible as we're discussing it here really just means something is not impossible and only tells us that the likelihood or probability (which are [sometimes] distinguished) is not zero -- just like impossible only tells us they are zero.)

Now you could make an argument that if someone holds there's no demonstration of logical impossibility that this implies logical necessity. That would be an error in modal logic as I understand it. That something's logically necessary, of course, implies it's not logically impossible, but the reverse is not so. For instance, it's logically possible that a third party candidate can win the US presidential race in 2016. (Okay, it's probably more likely that machines will not only start thinking, but becomes our friends too in the same year.:) But that this is possible doesn't mean it's necessary (or inevitable, as I think it might be put in temporal modal logic).

But let me go further than this. I think the case can be made that those arguing for strong AI (the usual term for what you call "True AI" or "Actual AI"; just want to avoid multiplying terms here for what I feel are the same notion) are not merely arguing that their concept is not a priori nonsense, but that it's nomologically possible -- in the sense that it fits what they believe are the known laws of nature. Again, recall the argument I offered for their core argument:

1. Intelligence supervenes on a physical process in biological brain.

2. That physical process can be made to happen in something other than a biological brain.

3. When you have done this you have made an artificial intelligence.

Assuming there's no flaw in this (again, rather loose) argument's "logic," it seems the easiest way to attack it is to show either be shown to be wrong by either showing that intelligence doesn't supervene on physical processes (even allowing Roderick's "quibble") or that it does but can't happen in anything other than a biological brain (or a biological entity). In other words, to either refute physicalism (which, again, does have its serious critics) or to refute multiple realizability (in some form; there's a growing literature on this, but, like physicalism, multiple realizability has its serious critics too). I don't either falls prey to your attack.

I'll go one further. I've met AI enthusiasts who posit strong AI is an empirical claim which they believe will be proved true in the next few decades. (Long enough for many of us to be dead, I take, so no egg on their face if their wrong -- unless you want to pull them out their cryo-tanks and smear it on them:). But they admit it might not come to pass. Is that a reasonable or unreasonable position for them to hold?

And my guess is some of the strong AI types who would go further than this -- seeing it as inevitable -- should they live long enough and not see it come to pass will, no doubt, change their minds. (Just like, I trust, should strong AI really come about, you'll change yours.)

Regards, 

Dan



From clementlawyer at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 01:21:35 2014
From: clementlawyer at gmail.com (James Clement)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 20:21:35 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Alcor membership reaches 1000
In-Reply-To: <CAJX-7wXnPWwT6TF88EgKrzLJZVydN2TOhQshx1rtmkeGyA1NiQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXnPWwT6TF88EgKrzLJZVydN2TOhQshx1rtmkeGyA1NiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CA+LBAbT-b=s47y+anoLJEt5xhF6JPRiwKSsPuJYzAgSZQOKpYw@mail.gmail.com>

Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:

> On September 24, 2014, Alcor?s membership reached 1000 for the first time.
>
> _
>
> w00t, we are the 0.000285%
(approximately)

James
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140926/a9cec65d/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 01:46:08 2014
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 21:46:08 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Alcor membership reaches 1000
In-Reply-To: <CAJX-7wXnPWwT6TF88EgKrzLJZVydN2TOhQshx1rtmkeGyA1NiQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXnPWwT6TF88EgKrzLJZVydN2TOhQshx1rtmkeGyA1NiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2kVyhk+aBisqxcdR5n+UMjdRMHrJ9x3MtktCZa=v+k-A@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:

> On September 24, 2014, Alcor?s membership reached 1000 for the first
> time.
>

Congratulations Max! I have a strong hunch it may soon reach 1001.

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140926/97992f73/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 02:35:30 2014
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:35:30 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
In-Reply-To: <1411775089.88488.YahooMailNeo@web161603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1410560744.2227.YahooMailNeo@web161601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAOmnAOyakuWSQAk75Pn9-c5XoMhkJguTr1NjxT_PAR6gV3ks6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQGAnEf2Gn_s+aj0Eg=+v3bGUHFwHSgnp=TRR0P9m5aQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F68ADC7-B556-4A29-B1D9-815758A995E6@gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQ0baupN93foS+T9hsS+X4HjcKK_5vGkAHDvHnwnvxOrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <92A9EAE3-1E2E-42E1-88C9-2661FA91DA82@gmail.com>
 <CABgRZORdAtcX1njsttFB=TeXktbtNQE7fYndKsbNTG+ADc4CWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOSPr=i4uD16Pru0c4_RieuEfOpfSz7OemNxKDXY5Q1oVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <F69B172C-6564-41BB-B0E6-72CB70AD2CD5@gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQ2vWpBHFQG12xbbTRpSXy3NbGON74tAcP5C7xcQVBBxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOmnAOyxcE=1qx=4yLeeqAybTHvawaPLk0sp7eKkWYrgGh7O8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOSgiaPMM30UDMU6tD14ORjZzvK8hYSNS+N1RUirXM5JaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411676302.219.YahooMailNeo@web161604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CABgRZOR84DWXhr+++t=CC-i_bfa=meYiXxA-qRUEpad4pm+dJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQzCVKPhKb=ds-ZHuBjYOo=sXahEAytBtO=DAtkAT3H0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411690860.1023.YahooMailNeo@web161604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CABgRZOTn-h_5uKCN3E=r+VyxYdDjqMtO_2-nFo9BSD4JXbQfpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411769280.43806.YahooMailNeo@web161605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <1411775089.88488.YahooMailNeo@web161603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <CAH=2ypVv+OfLxbhdov70KN64PPUgrZpMRwcpskKF4WEtXx_UDQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Saturday, September 27, 2014, Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com> wrote:

> This is one of my recent salvos in a discussion Nick's book -- or a review
> of it -- touched off on the Yahoo group LeftLibertarian2. I thought it
> might be of interest. The other person referred to is Jeff Olson, an active
> member of that group who's also published a novel dealing with AI.
>
> By the way, do you any of you have any comments to make on what I call the
> "core argument" for strong AI? (Scroll down, it's near the end.)
>
>
> Dan
>
> On Friday, September 26, 2014 3:08 PM, "Dan dan_ust at yahoo.com
> [LeftLibertarian2]" <LeftLibertarian2 at yahoogroups.com> wrote:
>
> [Snip] The actual way to demonstrate something is not logically
> impossible, is to show that nothing on a priori grounds makes it
> impossible. This doesn't mean, by the way, that one might not be mistaken
> -- perhaps overlooked some aspect of something that would make it
> impossible. But then the mistake wouldn't be with someone's overall view of
> possibility as such, but with the specific case being ill defined rather
> than poor logic.
>
> To put it pithily as possible: not being [able] to rule something as
> impossible is the definition of it being possible. (It doesn't, however,
> tell us anything about it's likelihood. Again, in common parlance, people
> often use "possible" to mean something that has a vanishingly small
> likelihood -- as if there were a scale of possible < likely/probable <
> actual/necessary. But possible as we're discussing it here really just
> means something is not impossible and only tells us that the likelihood or
> probability (which are [sometimes] distinguished) is not zero -- just like
> impossible only tells us they are zero.)
>
> Now you could make an argument that if someone holds there's no
> demonstration of logical impossibility that this implies logical necessity.
> That would be an error in modal logic as I understand it. That something's
> logically necessary, of course, implies it's not logically impossible, but
> the reverse is not so. For instance, it's logically possible that a third
> party candidate can win the US presidential race in 2016. (Okay, it's
> probably more likely that machines will not only start thinking, but
> becomes our friends too in the same year.:) But that this is possible
> doesn't mean it's necessary (or inevitable, as I think it might be put in
> temporal modal logic).


Possibility implies necessity if all possible worlds exist. This has
interesting implications. For example, if being raised from cryinic sleep
has only a 1/10^100 probability, then in a multiverse where all
possibilities are realised you will definitely find yourself waking from
cryinic sleep.


> But let me go further than this. I think the case can be made that those
> arguing for strong AI (the usual term for what you call "True AI" or
> "Actual AI"; just want to avoid multiplying terms here for what I feel are
> the same notion) are not merely arguing that their concept is not a priori
> nonsense, but that it's nomologically possible -- in the sense that it fits
> what they believe are the known laws of nature. Again, recall the argument
> I offered for their core argument:
>
> 1. Intelligence supervenes on a physical process in biological brain.
>
> 2. That physical process can be made to happen in something other than a
> biological brain.
>
> 3. When you have done this you have made an artificial intelligence.
>
> Assuming there's no flaw in this (again, rather loose) argument's "logic,"
> it seems the easiest way to attack it is to show either be shown to be
> wrong by either showing that intelligence doesn't supervene on physical
> processes (even allowing Roderick's "quibble") or that it does but can't
> happen in anything other than a biological brain (or a biological entity).
> In other words, to either refute physicalism (which, again, does have its
> serious critics) or to refute multiple realizability (in some form; there's
> a growing literature on this, but, like physicalism, multiple realizability
> has its serious critics too). I don't either falls prey to your attack.
>
> I'll go one further. I've met AI enthusiasts who posit strong AI is an
> empirical claim which they believe will be proved true in the next few
> decades. (Long enough for many of us to be dead, I take, so no egg on their
> face if their wrong -- unless you want to pull them out their cryo-tanks
> and smear it on them:). But they admit it might not come to pass. Is that a
> reasonable or unreasonable position for them to hold?
>
> And my guess is some of the strong AI types who would go further than this
> -- seeing it as inevitable -- should they live long enough and not see it
> come to pass will, no doubt, change their minds. (Just like, I trust,
> should strong AI really come about, you'll change yours.)
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140927/d759a0c8/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 02:55:01 2014
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 22:55:01 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
In-Reply-To: <C9F3BD64-5AFA-45EF-A3A4-F080BD0384DF@gmail.com>
References: <1411775089.88488.YahooMailNeo@web161603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <C9F3BD64-5AFA-45EF-A3A4-F080BD0384DF@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2aZctnpibNDPPhnfJ1FHz14Aj_AjOM+=DbQN9Y78siQw@mail.gmail.com>

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 7:50 PM, Dan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the case can be made that those arguing for strong AI (the usual
> term for what you call "True AI" or "Actual AI"; just want to avoid
> multiplying terms here for what I feel are the same notion) are not merely
> arguing that their concept is not a priori nonsense, but that it's
> nomologically possible
>

Well of course it's possible! The human brain is intelligent and it's made
up of Hydrogen, Oxygen, Carbon, Nitrogen, Calcium and Phosphorous atoms in
a particular arrangement; random mutation and natural selection managed to
come up with a arrangement that works, why on Earth would it be impossible
for intelligence to do as well or better, much better.


> > the easiest way to attack it is to show either be shown to be wrong by
> either showing that intelligence doesn't supervene on physical processes
>

Is this even debatable? If we change the brain then the mind always
changes, if we change the mind then the brain always changes, so we know
for certain that intelligence comes from the complex interactions of
physical objects; or at least we know it as certainly as we know anything
in science.

> That physical process can be made to happen in something other than a
> biological brain.
>

Intelligence involves understanding, and the only thing we or any
intelligent entity understands is information (we may understand what a
rock is composed of and how and when it was made but nobody understands
rock). Electronics can send information hundreds of millions of times
faster than biology and store it more reliably too, so there is absolutely
no reason to suspect biology has a monopoly on intelligence.


> > In other words, to either refute physicalism (which, again, does have
> its serious critics)
>

The word  "physicalism" was not invented by scientists but by philosophers
of mind, so it's not surprising it's ridiculous. The definition they gave
it is "everything is physical" which gives me precisely as much information
as saying "everything is klogknee", that is to say zero. Meaning needs
contrast, "everything is physical" is equivalent to "nothing is physical".


> > I've met AI enthusiasts who posit strong AI is an empirical claim which
> they believe will be proved true in the next few decades.
>

I would say that computers became intelligent decades ago except for one
thing, some people keep changing the meaning of the word "intelligent" so
that now it means anything that computer's aren't good at, ... yet.
Fifty years ago everybody and I do mean everybody, thought that solving
equations or playing a great game of Chess required great intelligence. No
more. Fifteen years ago everybody thought it would take a great deal of
intelligence for a librarian to do what Google does. No more. Three years
ago it took intelligence just to understand the questions on Jeopardy never
mind finding the answers, but now the universe has changed and intelligence
has nothing to do with it any longer. The reason some say that AI has made
no progress is that they keep moving the finish line.

For this reason I would humbly suggest that June 23 (Alan Turing's birthday
by the way) be turned into a international holiday called "Image
Recognition Appreciation Day". On this day we would all reflect on the
intelligence required to recognize images. It is important that this be
done soon because although computers are not very good at this task right
now that will certainly change in the next few years. On the day computers
become good at it the laws of physics in the universe will change and
intelligence will no longer be required for image recognition.

So if we ever intend to salute the brainpower required for this skill it is
imperative we do it now while we can.

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140926/8d3ae564/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 03:18:30 2014
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 20:18:30 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
In-Reply-To: <CAH=2ypVv+OfLxbhdov70KN64PPUgrZpMRwcpskKF4WEtXx_UDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1410560744.2227.YahooMailNeo@web161601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAOmnAOyakuWSQAk75Pn9-c5XoMhkJguTr1NjxT_PAR6gV3ks6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQGAnEf2Gn_s+aj0Eg=+v3bGUHFwHSgnp=TRR0P9m5aQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F68ADC7-B556-4A29-B1D9-815758A995E6@gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQ0baupN93foS+T9hsS+X4HjcKK_5vGkAHDvHnwnvxOrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <92A9EAE3-1E2E-42E1-88C9-2661FA91DA82@gmail.com>
 <CABgRZORdAtcX1njsttFB=TeXktbtNQE7fYndKsbNTG+ADc4CWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOSPr=i4uD16Pru0c4_RieuEfOpfSz7OemNxKDXY5Q1oVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <F69B172C-6564-41BB-B0E6-72CB70AD2CD5@gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQ2vWpBHFQG12xbbTRpSXy3NbGON74tAcP5C7xcQVBBxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOmnAOyxcE=1qx=4yLeeqAybTHvawaPLk0sp7eKkWYrgGh7O8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOSgiaPMM30UDMU6tD14ORjZzvK8hYSNS+N1RUirXM5JaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411676302.219.YahooMailNeo@web161604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CABgRZOR84DWXhr+++t=CC-i_bfa=meYiXxA-qRUEpad4pm+dJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQzCVKPhKb=ds-ZHuBjYOo=sXahEAytBtO=DAtkAT3H0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411690860.1023.YahooMailNeo@web161604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CABgRZOTn-h_5uKCN3E=r+VyxYdDjqMtO_2-nFo9BSD4JXbQfpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411769280.43806.YahooMailNeo@web161605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <1411775089.88488.YahooMailNeo@web161603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAH=2ypVv+OfLxbhdov70KN64PPUgrZpMRwcpskKF4WEtXx_UDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <575DBB0A-5408-406A-A6B6-E449095347C7@gmail.com>

> On Friday, September 26, 2014 7:41 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Possibility implies necessity if all possible worlds exist.

A big and controversial "if" which I do not think is necessary to bring into this discussion to refute Jeff's view.

> This has interesting implications. For example, if being raised from cryinic sleep
> has only a 1/10^100 probability, then in a multiverse where all possibilities are
> realised you will definitely find yourself waking from cryinic sleep.

This presumes that you are identical with each instance of you. Another controversial view, even within possible worlds interpretations of modality. After all, it could be that you are simply the instance here in this world now and maybe you won't be revived while is some "modally" distant world the version of you there will be, but this is little different than you have a twin now who happens to outlive you. Not the same as you outliving your own death, no?

Regards,

Dan
My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," can be previewed at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140926/12f7837c/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 05:23:52 2014
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan)
Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2014 22:23:52 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2aZctnpibNDPPhnfJ1FHz14Aj_AjOM+=DbQN9Y78siQw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1411775089.88488.YahooMailNeo@web161603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <C9F3BD64-5AFA-45EF-A3A4-F080BD0384DF@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2aZctnpibNDPPhnfJ1FHz14Aj_AjOM+=DbQN9Y78siQw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <9E611077-5924-4D90-ACA8-FD1D5C2FDD6B@gmail.com>

John, regarding physicalism, you might want to read this:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/

and Daniel Stoljar's book _ Physicalism_. The idea is not so easily dismissed as you seem to believe. Stoljar's goes over problems with defining physicalism in detail. 

Also, I don't believe work done on it is pointless either. In a sense, most people who believe strong AI is possible hold some variant of physicalism. I mean they believe and work under the presumption that some form of physicalism is true. 

Also, physicalism isn't trivial by way of being empty -- any more than Ancient Greek atomism was similarly empty. The latter held all things were ultimately composed of atoms. There wasn't anything else but atoms and stuff made of atoms. Regardless of whether it was true, it didn't suffer from being either trivial or being vacuous because it didn't pose stuff not made of atoms.

Regards,

Dan
My latest Kindle book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140926/805b82bb/attachment.html>

From brent.allsop at canonizer.com  Sat Sep 27 12:52:34 2014
From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 06:52:34 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Alcor membership reaches 1000
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2kVyhk+aBisqxcdR5n+UMjdRMHrJ9x3MtktCZa=v+k-A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXnPWwT6TF88EgKrzLJZVydN2TOhQshx1rtmkeGyA1NiQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2kVyhk+aBisqxcdR5n+UMjdRMHrJ9x3MtktCZa=v+k-A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAK7-onu0PdB1qkzJFdTm4Sh1_xB-S1wnfE2873EdUqbxGyfiLQ@mail.gmail.com>

That's funny, John.  It is tempting to look at things with a magnifying
glass like that, and miss the forest for the trees.

My question is, how long did it take to go from 1 to 10.  Then how long did
it take to go from 10 to 100.  And finally, how long for the most recent
100 to 1000.

We are doing this kind of historical analyses of the growth of the Market
Cap of All Crypto Currency.

http://canonizer.com/topic.asp/154/2

As you can see, the time periods between each order of magnitude of growth
is unbelievably consistent and "Moore's law like".  6 of the 7 periods were
6 months.  There are crypto currency 2.0 emerging, and their grow rate
looks like they will take over on this growth curve, replacing Bitcoin, as
the leader, enabling the 6 month period to continue.

So Max, does anyone have this historical data.  How long did it take to go
from 1 to 10 to 100 to 1000 Alcor customers?  I bet that, like Bitcoin, and
Moore's law, they are very consistent.

Brent Allsop








On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 7:46 PM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:36 PM, Max More <max at maxmore.com> wrote:
>
> > On September 24, 2014, Alcor?s membership reached 1000 for the first
>> time.
>>
>
> Congratulations Max! I have a strong hunch it may soon reach 1001.
>
>   John K Clark
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140927/981baf3c/attachment.html>

From bbenzai at yahoo.com  Sat Sep 27 12:49:04 2014
From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 13:49:04 +0100
Subject: [ExI] European privacy versus free speech; Google
In-Reply-To: <mailman.1.1411819201.6878.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
References: <mailman.1.1411819201.6878.extropy-chat@lists.extropy.org>
Message-ID: <5426B240.9050502@yahoo.com>


On 27/09/2014 13:00, extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org wrote:
> William Flynn Wallace<foozler83 at gmail.com>
> To: ExI chat list<extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org>
> Subject: [ExI] European privacy versus free speech; Google
> Message-ID:
> 	<CAO+xQEYKSzxDJAjwQ9jw4Ei9voCVHytajx1=aePaDfdAag8UZw at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Published as "The Solace of Oblivion" in the New Yorker. (in case the link
> doesn't work)  bill w
>
> http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/29/solace-oblivion?%20utm_source=tny&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=weeklyemail&mbid=nl_092914_Weekly&CUST_ID=20203782&spMailingID=7157616&spUserID=MjczNzc0NzI5OTkS1&spJobID=522868122&spReportId=NTIyODY4MTIyS0

Or, for those wishing to minimise the relentless web-tracking:

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/09/29/solace-oblivion

;>

Ben Zaiboc


From protokol2020 at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 13:14:58 2014
From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 15:14:58 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Lessons from Tesla?
In-Reply-To: <00e301cfd917$2adee680$809cb380$@att.net>
References: <CAPiwVB5e-_f4EcG_iTEQst_GHzATYFx4gZLPHwW5oG8hCd-poQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <00e301cfd917$2adee680$809cb380$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CALMrAFTkHstwXoiXpmfT0fbbxJt-mHgPm_iU65Su7Hz8RVyrNA@mail.gmail.com>

Spike!

There is no reason to convert DC to AC, except for the transport and some
existing motor types. Computers, phones, TV's and so on, needs DC,
batteries are DC oriented, and so forth...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current

Check this and everything related.

On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 1:19 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
> >... On Behalf Of Keith Henson
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Lessons from Tesla?
>
> On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 5:00 AM,  Tomaz Kristan <protokol2020 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >>... In the end, the AC of Tesla is going to go away, the DC of Edison
> will
>
> > prevail.After more than a century, Edison is to be right.
>
> >...I sort of doubt it.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-voltage_direct_current
>
> The penetration of DC customer service that's left in a few places dates
> from a century ago.
>
> Which gives you an idea  of how long these things take to change.
>
> Keith
> _______________________________________________
>
>
> AC and DC do two different things.  The question isn't AC or DC, it is more
> about how we will use both.  In fact we do use both: our computers and ever
> more now, our home lighting, uses DC.  Our home heating systems use AC to
> run the air handling motors.  If we get all-electric cars, they operate on
> DC.  To charge them with AC, we need to convert it, which is costly and
> requires big capacitors.  We can imagine rooftop solar collectors charging
> cars without ever going thru AC.  For long haul transmission of electric
> power, AC works great.
>
> We will have both AC and DC for the foreseeable, assuming we build a lot
> more generating capacity.
>
> spike
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>



-- 
https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140927/1aabbfa0/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 16:14:59 2014
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:14:59 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
In-Reply-To: <9E611077-5924-4D90-ACA8-FD1D5C2FDD6B@gmail.com>
References: <1411775089.88488.YahooMailNeo@web161603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <C9F3BD64-5AFA-45EF-A3A4-F080BD0384DF@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2aZctnpibNDPPhnfJ1FHz14Aj_AjOM+=DbQN9Y78siQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <9E611077-5924-4D90-ACA8-FD1D5C2FDD6B@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2Z4zoPPx-JOuFqZoPFFEO+uhHQajZ3Yn9H_E+iAjLHiA@mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Dan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:

> John, regarding physicalism, you might want to read this:
>
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/
>

The very first words of this is "Physicalism is the thesis that everything
is physical", this was obviously written by a philosopher of mind which
explains its uselessness. Now if it had said "all nouns are made of matter"
I would have kept reading, if it had then said that matter is made of
Bosons and Fermions or if it had said that matter is everything except for
information I would have kept reading, but it didn't so I won't. I love
philosophy but philosophers no longer do philosophy, scientists and
mathematicians do.

> Also, physicalism isn't trivial by way of being empty -- any more than
> Ancient Greek atomism was similarly empty.
>

I think the ancient Greeks got more credit than they deserved for coming up
with atomism, after all substances are either infinitely divisible or they
aren't, Democritus said they aren't and Aristotle said they are. One said
things were continuous and one said things were not, one of them had to be
right although neither had a scrap of experimental evidence to support his
guess.

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140927/11f80f0e/attachment.html>

From ilia.stambler at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 18:52:44 2014
From: ilia.stambler at gmail.com (Ilia Stambler)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 19:52:44 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Happy forthcoming Longevity Day!
Message-ID: <CAJbwcBgQ5sCgWhJVNM_5iLgZcgNsTjptByGHd-pT=3pH8BiE=Q@mail.gmail.com>

Dear friends,


There are just a few days until *October 1, the UN International Day of
Older Persons*, also recognized in some parts of the Longevity Advocacy
Community ? as the *International Longevity Day*.



Concerted efforts on such dedicated days can be an extremely effective form
of advocacy for a cause. Consider for example the recent Avaaz Campaign for
Clean Energy that took place on September 21. The action involved marches
and other events in dozens of countries, in hundreds of communities, by
hundreds of thousands of participants, and millions signing the petition.
We can be sure that thanks to such actions the issue of Clean Energy will
receive a greater emphasis with the wide public and policy makers.



https://secure.avaaz.org/en/climate_march_reportback/?bvRbqdb&v=46379



This can also be an example for the Longevity Movement. We are yet very far
from such scope of activity, but we may aspire to it, in order to make
healthy longevity for all a real public and political priority around the
world. October 1 can be an exercise in such concerted action.



Last year, events on or around that day were held by longevity researchers
and activists in more than 30 countries. This year, the activities seem to
have subsided. Yet the tradition is maintained, hopefully we will pick up
in the next year and many years to come!



Here is a report about the current events and the ones that were organized
last year. Some events just coincided with that time, but some were
purposefully initiated to celebrate the Longevity Day! Altogether they
emphasize the importance of aging and longevity research for the well being
and longevity of Older Persons.



http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/72013-promoting-longevity-research-on-october-1-?-the-international-day-of-older-persons/



There is still some time to produce some publications or posts, or gather
with a few friends live or online to celebrate the occasion! If you are
organizing some event, please announce. Would also be grateful if you
please send me some descriptions and pictures of the events ? so I could
produce a nice global report. Some small prizes may also be possible.



Besides meetings and publications, other kinds of activities are possible.
For example, the fundraising campaign by Fight Aging on behalf of SENS
Research Foundation is also scheduled to start on October 1. This can be
combined with other events, for example distributing the campaign?s flyers
at a local meeting.



https://www.fightaging.org/fund-research/



In our community we are organizing a small seminar on the social
implications of extended longevity.


http://www.bioaging.org.il/international-day-of-older-persons-october-1-bar-ilan/


I personally also scheduled the publication of my new book on the history
of longevity research, entitled ?A History of Life-Extensionism in the
Twentieth Century? toward this time (thankful for any feedback).
Proceedings from sales of this book will go to support longevity activism,
especially local activism of the kind that will hopefully take place on
October 1.



http://www.amazon.com/History-Life-Extensionism-Twentieth-Century/dp/1500818577/



Looking forward to many more events supporting Longevity Research on and
around October 1 ? the International Day of Older Persons ? and afterwards
throughout the year!



Yours,

Ilia Stambler

-- 

Ilia Stambler, PhD

Chair. Israeli Longevity Alliance. www.bioaging.org.il

Coordinator. Longevity for All. www.longevityforall.org

Author. Longevity History. *A History of Life-Extensionism in the Twentieth
Century*. www.longevityhistory.com

Email: ilia.stambler at gmail.com

Tel: 972-3-961-4296

Rishon Lezion. Israel
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140927/e8d36300/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sat Sep 27 19:10:51 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 12:10:51 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Happy forthcoming Longevity Day!
In-Reply-To: <CAJbwcBgQ5sCgWhJVNM_5iLgZcgNsTjptByGHd-pT=3pH8BiE=Q@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJbwcBgQ5sCgWhJVNM_5iLgZcgNsTjptByGHd-pT=3pH8BiE=Q@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01b701cfda86$c18d9cf0$44a8d6d0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ilia Stambler
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 11:53 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: [ExI] Happy forthcoming Longevity Day!

 

Dear friends,

 

There are just a few days until October 1, the UN International Day of Older Persons, also recognized in some parts of the Longevity Advocacy Community ? as the International Longevity Day.

 ?

 

Cool!  Thanks Ilia.  May we all live long enough to celebrate that.

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140927/7a13eef5/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Sat Sep 27 21:58:02 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 23:58:02 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
In-Reply-To: <C9F3BD64-5AFA-45EF-A3A4-F080BD0384DF@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3104908721-25173@secure.ericade.net>

Dan?<danust2012 at gmail.com>?, 27/9/2014 1:53 AM:Again, recall the argument I offered for their core argument:
1. Intelligence supervenes on a physical process in biological brain.

2. That physical process can be made to happen in something other than a biological brain.

3. When you have done this you have made an artificial intelligence.

Assuming there's no flaw in this (again, rather loose) argument's "logic," it seems the easiest way to attack it is to show either be shown to be wrong by either showing that intelligence doesn't supervene on physical processes (even allowing Roderick's "quibble") or that it does but can't happen in anything other than a biological brain (or a biological entity).
No to the first branch. If you find intelligence supervening from non-physical systems, it doesn't tell you whether physical systems can sustain it (maybe humans have immortal souls doing their thinking, but zorgons do all their thinking in their silicon brains, which are easily copied into computers). You need something stronger, like an argument that it cannot be sustained by physical systems - which is your second branch.?
It is interesting to consider what kind of input or evidence would be good for convincing us that strong AI is impossible. Clever philosophical arguments rarely seem to do it. Decades of failure is obviously some evidence, but the amount depends on whether one thinks research has actually been looking at relevant stuff or just gone down totally wrong approaches (I guess Minsky thinks this is true). A demonstration that quantum mechanics or ectoplasm is necessary for human intelligence would just shift the goal to use something like those mediums for AI. My guess real anti-strong AI evidence might be like conceptually strong insights into cognitive science or philosophy of mind that actually seem to tell us something relevant about the nature of intelligence and imply some problem with strong AI. An analogy would be the discovery of chemical elements showing that transmutation was impossible (and, with further refinement in nuclear theory, demonstrating that it *was* possible but pointless).?


Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140927/e56cb2e2/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 23:17:58 2014
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:17:58 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Fwd:  Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
In-Reply-To: <CAH=2ypUddkbNZRZuXj2KrpNaWOnhRKV5XrcbiFfTzj_7Ds9TjQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1410560744.2227.YahooMailNeo@web161601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAOmnAOyakuWSQAk75Pn9-c5XoMhkJguTr1NjxT_PAR6gV3ks6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQGAnEf2Gn_s+aj0Eg=+v3bGUHFwHSgnp=TRR0P9m5aQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F68ADC7-B556-4A29-B1D9-815758A995E6@gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQ0baupN93foS+T9hsS+X4HjcKK_5vGkAHDvHnwnvxOrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <92A9EAE3-1E2E-42E1-88C9-2661FA91DA82@gmail.com>
 <CABgRZORdAtcX1njsttFB=TeXktbtNQE7fYndKsbNTG+ADc4CWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOSPr=i4uD16Pru0c4_RieuEfOpfSz7OemNxKDXY5Q1oVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <F69B172C-6564-41BB-B0E6-72CB70AD2CD5@gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQ2vWpBHFQG12xbbTRpSXy3NbGON74tAcP5C7xcQVBBxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOmnAOyxcE=1qx=4yLeeqAybTHvawaPLk0sp7eKkWYrgGh7O8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOSgiaPMM30UDMU6tD14ORjZzvK8hYSNS+N1RUirXM5JaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411676302.219.YahooMailNeo@web161604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CABgRZOR84DWXhr+++t=CC-i_bfa=meYiXxA-qRUEpad4pm+dJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQzCVKPhKb=ds-ZHuBjYOo=sXahEAytBtO=DAtkAT3H0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411690860.1023.YahooMailNeo@web161604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CABgRZOTn-h_5uKCN3E=r+VyxYdDjqMtO_2-nFo9BSD4JXbQfpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411769280.43806.YahooMailNeo@web161605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <1411775089.88488.YahooMailNeo@web161603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAH=2ypVv+OfLxbhdov70KN64PPUgrZpMRwcpskKF4WEtXx_UDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411786298.53129.YahooMailNeo@web161605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAH=2ypUddkbNZRZuXj2KrpNaWOnhRKV5XrcbiFfTzj_7Ds9TjQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH=2ypXum3zB8WXQoYn8jC8Q=tPWavPNnp3qrVUZHe2Gd=fxfA@mail.gmail.com>

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: *Stathis Papaioannou* <stathisp at gmail.com>
Date: Saturday, September 27, 2014
Subject: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
To: Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com>




On Saturday, September 27, 2014, Dan <dan_ust at yahoo.com
<javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','dan_ust at yahoo.com');>> wrote:

> On Friday, September 26, 2014 7:41 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <
> stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> > Possibility implies necessity if all possible worlds exist.
>
> A big and controversial "if" which I do not think is necessary to bring
> into this discussion to refute Jeff's view.


I didn't read the original discussion, but it is trivially obvious that
possibility implies necessity only if all possibilities are realised. And
note that a multiverse could take many forms, including a single universe
of infinite spatial extent.


> > This has interesting implications. For example, if being raised from
> cryinic sleep
> > has only a 1/10^100 probability, then in a multiverse where all
> possibilities are
> > realised you will definitely find yourself waking from cryinic sleep.
>
>
> This presumes that you are identical with each instance of you. Another
> controversial view, even within possible worlds interpretations of
> modality. After all, it could be that you are simply the instance here in
> this world now and maybe you won't be revived while is some "modally"
> distant world the version of you there will be, but this is little
> different than you have a twin now who happens to outlive you. Not the same
> as you outliving your own death, no?


I've heard this "the copy may survive but it won't be me" objection many
times but it is wrong. If it were not wrong, then you should be upset to
learn that over the course of months almost all the atoms in your body are
replaced by different atoms, since it would mean that the original you will
die and in your place will be a copy with the delusional belief that he is
you.

Regards,
>
> Dan
>  My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," can be previewed at:
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
>


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou



-- 
Stathis Papaioannou
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140928/5f36346d/attachment.html>

From ohadasor at gmail.com  Sat Sep 27 22:20:09 2014
From: ohadasor at gmail.com (Ohad Asor)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 01:20:09 +0300
Subject: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
In-Reply-To: <3104908721-25173@secure.ericade.net>
References: <C9F3BD64-5AFA-45EF-A3A4-F080BD0384DF@gmail.com>
 <3104908721-25173@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAAuFJFuCCtO4RaMSNTAJu0hq76A9XkRH7H5b=w1EAfHTc1ZZFQ@mail.gmail.com>

Hi all, great to be here :)

On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> Decades of failure is obviously some evidence


Why do you think so, sir?

What about the fact that only lately hardware became close to the order of
magnitudes of the brain?
Let me give some numbers: home super-duper CPU has 8 cores with say 3GHz
each. We got total of 24GHz.
Now a $300 GPU contains ~10,000 CPUs each with 1GHz. Total 10,000 GHz =
10^13Hz.
Our brain has 10^9 neurons working with max 100Hz. Total 10^11Hz.

Yes, I didn't take into account the vast amount of synapses, but you see
where I'm going to..

I must mention that the AI science, from the mathematical aspects, enjoys
tons of new insights over the last years. There is some criticism about
this community, as can be heard on Yann Le'Cunn's lecture on youtube, with
something like being in a circles between defiance and denial, and being
afraid of non-convex-shmonvex problems (he killed me on that one). I humbly
agree with him.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140928/4dc66209/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Sun Sep 28 02:55:25 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Sat, 27 Sep 2014 19:55:25 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
In-Reply-To: <CAAuFJFuCCtO4RaMSNTAJu0hq76A9XkRH7H5b=w1EAfHTc1ZZFQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <C9F3BD64-5AFA-45EF-A3A4-F080BD0384DF@gmail.com>
 <3104908721-25173@secure.ericade.net>
 <CAAuFJFuCCtO4RaMSNTAJu0hq76A9XkRH7H5b=w1EAfHTc1ZZFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <014901cfdac7$a802da20$f8088e60$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Ohad Asor
Sent: Saturday, September 27, 2014 3:20 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?

 

Hi all, great to be here :)

 

Hi Ohad, welcome.  Do tell us something cool about Ohad if you wish.

spike

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140927/50276709/attachment.html>

From ohadasor at gmail.com  Sun Sep 28 04:22:42 2014
From: ohadasor at gmail.com (Ohad Asor)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 07:22:42 +0300
Subject: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
In-Reply-To: <014901cfdac7$a802da20$f8088e60$@att.net>
References: <C9F3BD64-5AFA-45EF-A3A4-F080BD0384DF@gmail.com>
 <3104908721-25173@secure.ericade.net>
 <CAAuFJFuCCtO4RaMSNTAJu0hq76A9XkRH7H5b=w1EAfHTc1ZZFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <014901cfdac7$a802da20$f8088e60$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAAuFJFt23gK6WBTx_d+oWqrqLfK8J5Mk1gCTkQbtcDLUzKzx-A@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks,
I don't know what you meant exactly, but here's something cool
<http://www.is.tuebingen.mpg.de/fileadmin/user_upload/files/publications/TR_145_%5B0%5D.pdf>
by two of the coolest guys on earth.
Let me mention that the current theory of learning is so promising, as can
be shown just a part of it regarding VC Dimension & Popper in the linked
paper, that me personally, have no doubts regarding the future.
Science (at the sense of Popper) works, this is related to why PAC Learning
works, and in any case PAC generalizations are proven mathematically to
work.


On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 5:55 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
>
>
>
> *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On
> Behalf Of *Ohad Asor
> *Sent:* Saturday, September 27, 2014 3:20 PM
> *To:* ExI chat list
> *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
>
>
>
> Hi all, great to be here :)
>
>
>
> Hi Ohad, welcome.  Do tell us something cool about Ohad if you wish.
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140928/e5d7a795/attachment.html>

From listsb at infinitefaculty.org  Sun Sep 28 07:09:55 2014
From: listsb at infinitefaculty.org (Brian Manning Delaney)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 09:09:55 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Alcor membership reaches 1000
In-Reply-To: <CAJX-7wXnPWwT6TF88EgKrzLJZVydN2TOhQshx1rtmkeGyA1NiQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAJX-7wXnPWwT6TF88EgKrzLJZVydN2TOhQshx1rtmkeGyA1NiQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5427B443.4020200@infinitefaculty.org>


Max, congratulations.

El 2014-09-26 23:36, Max More escribi?:

> I suspect there are a fair number of people on this email list who
> accept that cryonics makes sense but haven't yet taken practical action.

Oh yes. Myself, I take one step more every year or so, and then 
something stops me (most recently, the headache of translating Swedish 
health records).

> Let me point out the easy, inexpensive, and important step of Associate
> Membership:
>
> http://alcor.org/BecomeMember/associate.html

Great idea -- esp. in conjunction with the Declaration of Intent to be 
Cryopreserved.

Brian



From anders at aleph.se  Sun Sep 28 09:01:09 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Sun, 28 Sep 2014 11:01:09 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
In-Reply-To: <CAAuFJFuCCtO4RaMSNTAJu0hq76A9XkRH7H5b=w1EAfHTc1ZZFQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3144437513-28026@secure.ericade.net>

Ohad Asor <ohadasor at gmail.com> , 28/9/2014 4:56 AM:
Hi all, great to be here :)Hi!
On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:Decades of failure is obviously some evidence
Why do you think so, sir?
I was using it in a Bayesian sense: it is information that ought to change our probability estimates, but it might of course be weak evidence that just multiplies them with 0.999999 or something like that.?
If one thinks that real AI research is only possible now because of computational advances or some relevant new insights, then decades of failure are very weak evidence. Just like decades of flying failure was not really good evidence against heavier-than-air flying since most of those approaches lacked the necessary aerodynamic knowledge: it was only after that had been discovered the Wright brothers had a chance. However, now the uncertainty resides in whether we think we know enough or not.
One neat way of reasoning about problems with unknown difficulty is to assume the amount of effort needed to succeed has a power-law distribution. Why? Because it is scale free, so whatever your way of measuring effort you get the same distribution (also, there are some entropy maximization properties I think). We also have priors which can be approximated as log-uniform. >From this some useful things can be seen, like that the probability of success tends to grow in a strongly convex way as a function of resources spent, that neglected domains can be extra profitable to investigate even when our priors say they are difficult, and estimates of expected benefit given a certain resource spending and our current knowledge. See?http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/how-to-treat-problems-of-unknown-difficulty/for a start - Owen have a lot of neat results I hope he puts up soon.?

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140928/014380c4/attachment.html>

From ohadasor at gmail.com  Mon Sep 29 01:02:49 2014
From: ohadasor at gmail.com (Ohad Asor)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 04:02:49 +0300
Subject: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
In-Reply-To: <3144437513-28026@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CAAuFJFuCCtO4RaMSNTAJu0hq76A9XkRH7H5b=w1EAfHTc1ZZFQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <3144437513-28026@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAAuFJFtuHQLhqHsO57RmWxmT8ZjkBLULoYG4LGBYPiogg-sMXA@mail.gmail.com>

I think I understand the probabilistic tools you rely on. As you mentioned,
Bayesian approach and assumptions over families of distributions.
The main crunch of the new machine learning theory is to prove generalization
bounds <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalization_error> that apply to
*all* distributions.
Say you sampled 100 ravens and 60% of them are black. Can you tell
something about the unsampled ravens, that will hold regardless to the
ravens' color distribution? Or in other words, be true for any unknown
underlying distribution?
The astonishing answer is yes. It is a consequence of a property called
'concentration of measure'. Here
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Margin_classifier> is an example. Chebyshev
inequality can be seen as something weaker (since it requires the second
moment to be finite and known) that gives you bounds applying to a wide
family of distributions.
I see the present and the future of machine learning focusing on such
approaches, designing learning algorithms to apply to any underlying
distribution. From here, the road to a general purpose AI, it open. All, at
least IMHO.

What is your opinion regarding those universal bounds?


On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> Ohad Asor <ohadasor at gmail.com> , 28/9/2014 4:56 AM:
>
> Hi all, great to be here :)
>
> Hi!
>
> On Sun, Sep 28, 2014 at 12:58 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>
> Decades of failure is obviously some evidence
>
>
> Why do you think so, sir?
>
>
> I was using it in a Bayesian sense: it is information that ought to change
> our probability estimates, but it might of course be weak evidence that
> just multiplies them with 0.999999 or something like that.
>
> If one thinks that real AI research is only possible now because of
> computational advances or some relevant new insights, then decades of
> failure are very weak evidence. Just like decades of flying failure was not
> really good evidence against heavier-than-air flying since most of those
> approaches lacked the necessary aerodynamic knowledge: it was only after
> that had been discovered the Wright brothers had a chance. However, now the
> uncertainty resides in whether we think we know enough or not.
>
> One neat way of reasoning about problems with unknown difficulty is to
> assume the amount of effort needed to succeed has a power-law distribution.
> Why? Because it is scale free, so whatever your way of measuring effort you
> get the same distribution (also, there are some entropy maximization
> properties I think). We also have priors which can be approximated as
> log-uniform. From this some useful things can be seen, like that the
> probability of success tends to grow in a strongly convex way as a function
> of resources spent, that neglected domains can be extra profitable to
> investigate even when our priors say they are difficult, and estimates of
> expected benefit given a certain resource spending and our current
> knowledge. See
> http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/how-to-treat-problems-of-unknown-difficulty/
> for a start - Owen have a lot of neat results I hope he puts up soon.
>
>
> Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford
> University
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140929/404f53a9/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 29 12:51:02 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 07:51:02 -0500
Subject: [ExI] AI
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEaY_ojnJR+qJzGg_WcLq869dPz_C=+W+PxZu+_=ywLU+A@mail.gmail.com>

I am the equivalent of a first grader in this discussion, but what about
this?

If we knew exactly what we wanted a computer program to do, it would be
easy to write the code, correct?

If we wanted to model AI on the brain here's what we face:

Just recently glial cells have been found to not only supply neurons with
nutrition and serve as the blood brain barrier, but actually affect the
functioning of them.  We have no idea how or why now.  Given that there are
100 billion neurons with up to 25K connections and up to 5 trillion glial
cells, it will be a very long time, maybe never, before we can begin to
understand just what is going on up there except in a fairly general way.

So when we say that we want a computer to think or create we are going to
have to specify exactly what we mean (operational definitions in my
terminology), because trying to model the code on brain activity is a dead
end.  (Trivia:  I have seen three streets named Hemlock and all of them
have been dead ends.)

Also, calling it intelligence or creativity may in fact hinder the efforts
because we are still undecided what they are, especially the latter.  Why
not just figure out what you want the computer to do and program it?

bill w
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140929/299ce8c5/attachment.html>

From hkeithhenson at gmail.com  Mon Sep 29 16:59:42 2014
From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 09:59:42 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
Message-ID: <CAPiwVB6rTpcdhGyVJ8x2uPmuZAN9Uekj2DumpP+BmtUuf_R2Dw@mail.gmail.com>

There is similarity between the Wright Brothers and AI.

They knew that heavier than air objects could fly because they could
observe birds, bats and insects.

Likewise, AI people observe what we call intelligence in humans and to
some extent in animals.

If we can duplicate human brain circuits, there is no reason not to
expect intelligence to emerge.

That may not be the best way, just as flapping wings was not the best
way for humans to achieve flight.

Keith


From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Sep 29 17:41:00 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 18:41:00 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Much of Earth's Water Is Older Than the Sun
Message-ID: <CAL_armg+Dy0M_wh7R=yMWxv7-9C7Fq=8b_KAx8A2DZodJ-DAkA@mail.gmail.com>

By Mike Wall, Senior Writer   |   September 25, 2014
<http://www.space.com/27256-earth-water-older-than-sun.html>

Much of the water on Earth and elsewhere in the solar system likely
predates the birth of the sun, a new study reports.

The finding suggests that water is commonly incorporated into newly
forming planets throughout the Milky Way galaxy and beyond,
researchers said -- good news for anyone hoping that Earth isn't the
only world to host life.

"The implications of our study are that interstellar water-ice
remarkably survived the incredibly violent process of stellar birth to
then be incorporated into planetary bodies," study lead author Ilse
Cleeves, an astronomy Ph.D. student at the University of Michigan,
told Space.com via email.
------------


This is good news for thinking that life is abundant throughout the universe.
Life will still be restricted to 'habitable' zones of course, and
there is still the problem of exactly how likely the jump from
prokaryotes to multicellular life is.


BillK


From atymes at gmail.com  Mon Sep 29 18:06:58 2014
From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 11:06:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] AI
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEaY_ojnJR+qJzGg_WcLq869dPz_C=+W+PxZu+_=ywLU+A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEaY_ojnJR+qJzGg_WcLq869dPz_C=+W+PxZu+_=ywLU+A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CALAdGNQT0WJfFPRtXd_3HwRZgnWdK1O3EWgysTVb+RAb+6cHPg@mail.gmail.com>

On Sep 29, 2014 5:52 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" <foozler83 at gmail.com>
wrote:
> If we knew exactly what we wanted a computer program to do, it would be
easy to write the code, correct?

Indeed, knowing what the program is to do is often the problem.

> Also, calling it intelligence or creativity may in fact hinder the
efforts because we are still undecided what they are, especially the
latter.  Why not just figure out what you want the computer to do and
program it?

We want it, ultimately, to be at least human equivalent and probably
superior.  Figuring out what that means, in terms of stuff that can be
directly coded, is a large part of the challenge.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140929/1109599f/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Mon Sep 29 19:51:06 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 20:51:06 +0100
Subject: [ExI] AI
In-Reply-To: <CALAdGNQT0WJfFPRtXd_3HwRZgnWdK1O3EWgysTVb+RAb+6cHPg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAO+xQEaY_ojnJR+qJzGg_WcLq869dPz_C=+W+PxZu+_=ywLU+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CALAdGNQT0WJfFPRtXd_3HwRZgnWdK1O3EWgysTVb+RAb+6cHPg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAL_armi-EpF9y6QxOLRv3LQKyPyGAKG0fDGE1Q2JE38FVFKmLQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 7:06 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote:
> Indeed, knowing what the program is to do is often the problem.
>
> We want it, ultimately, to be at least human equivalent and probably
> superior.  Figuring out what that means, in terms of stuff that can be
> directly coded, is a large part of the challenge.
>

That's why some people speculate that the internet might eventually
appear to be 'intelligent'.
Not by itself, but by linking together other AI machines, like Watson,
Wikipedia, Wolfram, Google, etc.
Just as humans actually 'know' less and less, but appear to know more
than ever because they can look it up in seconds on the internet.

BillK


From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Mon Sep 29 21:28:24 2014
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:28:24 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Lessons from Tesla?
In-Reply-To: <2841860371-5520@secure.ericade.net>
References: <F2F32CAE-4911-41CC-B41A-C18F9561C3A5@gmail.com>
 <2841860371-5520@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwZLgHiA9hDO+rUyD_SCZy-NFYpAH4LaX81_4tZL+yM47g@mail.gmail.com>

On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> Dan <danust2012 at gmail.com> , 24/9/2014 10:00 PM:
>
> Now, that said, I don't know that there's a foolproof formula to decide
> what ideas or inspirations lead to success or that anyone can know the
> costs ahead of time of following or not following a certain lead. What do
> the rest of you think? Does the Tesla icon provide enough positive benefits
> to outweigh what I believe are its misleading aspects?
>
>
> I am pretty tired of Tesla hype. Yes, he was awesome and quirky, but the
> one main reason he failed seems to have been lack of business sense.
>

The Wright brothers also lacked business sense. Airplanes came of age
quicker than patent law and courts would have allowed only because of the
onset of WWI and laws that made their patents "national interest". It is
one of a very small collection of examples where I grant that the
government did the right thing in pushing technology forward.

It is common among inventors to be poor at business. It may be my own
failure as well. We shall see.

-Kelly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140929/2f01f290/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 29 22:15:03 2014
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:15:03 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
In-Reply-To: <CAPiwVB6rTpcdhGyVJ8x2uPmuZAN9Uekj2DumpP+BmtUuf_R2Dw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPiwVB6rTpcdhGyVJ8x2uPmuZAN9Uekj2DumpP+BmtUuf_R2Dw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <5E9CFB0A-F383-4263-8EF1-16B7B706AB50@gmail.com>

On Monday, September 29, 2014 10:02 AM, Keith Henson <hkeithhenson at gmail.com> wrote:
> There is similarity between the Wright Brothers and AI.
> 
> They knew that heavier than air objects could fly because
> they could observe birds, bats and insects.
> 
> Likewise, AI people observe what we call intelligence in humans and to some extent in animals.
> 
> If we can duplicate human brain circuits, there is no reason not to expect intelligence to emerge.
> 
> That may not be the best way, just as flapping wings was
> not the best way for humans to achieve flight.

It's a good analogy as far as it goes. The anti-AI crowd can, of course, offer that intelligence is nothing like flight in terms of how it's achieved in a living thing. I'm not saying I buy that attack on the analogy, but it might show why the analogy is not as persuasive across the board. After all, analogies succeed based on whether people agree the things compared being similar enough. 

By the way, huge discussion of the topic on LeftLibertarian 2 for those interested. The group's archives are at:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/LeftLibertarian2/

Regards, 

Dan 
 My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," can be previewed at: 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140929/74f00464/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Mon Sep 29 22:30:52 2014
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 15:30:52 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Lessons from Tesla?
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwZLgHiA9hDO+rUyD_SCZy-NFYpAH4LaX81_4tZL+yM47g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F2F32CAE-4911-41CC-B41A-C18F9561C3A5@gmail.com>
 <2841860371-5520@secure.ericade.net>
 <CAPy8RwZLgHiA9hDO+rUyD_SCZy-NFYpAH4LaX81_4tZL+yM47g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6511D708-647A-419B-91F5-9A088BA68FAD@gmail.com>

On Monday, September 29, 2014 2:28 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>> I am pretty tired of Tesla hype. Yes, he was awesome and quirky,
>> but the one main reason he failed seems to have been lack of
>> business sense.
> 
> The Wright brothers also lacked business sense. Airplanes came
> of age quicker than patent law and courts would have allowed
> only because of the onset of WWI and laws that made their
> patents "national interest". It is one of a very small
> collection of examples where I grant that the government did
> the right thing in pushing technology forward.
> 
> It is common among inventors to be poor at business. It may be
> my own failure as well. We shall see.

I'm inclined to question the example, and not simply because of its broken window fallacy implications -- i.e., what roads (even outside the aircraft industry) weren't taken -- but because patents themselves are an example of government intervention. It's not like it was a free market in aircraft development and manufacture. Instead, the patent system granted [temporary] monopolies. Yes, the government altered the policy during the war, but this sounds a lot like the old saw about the government breaking one's legs but then providing a really fine wheelchair, then touting the benefits of said wheelchair.

(Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying absent patents everything would move faster and all of us would get our deepest technological desires to come true. Even so, there seems to be much evidence that patents do more harm than good. See, for example,http://www.ics.uci.edu/community/news/press/view_press?id=89 )

Regards,

Dan
 My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," is now available at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140929/67b57588/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Mon Sep 29 23:45:45 2014
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 17:45:45 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Lessons from Tesla?
In-Reply-To: <6511D708-647A-419B-91F5-9A088BA68FAD@gmail.com>
References: <F2F32CAE-4911-41CC-B41A-C18F9561C3A5@gmail.com>
 <2841860371-5520@secure.ericade.net>
 <CAPy8RwZLgHiA9hDO+rUyD_SCZy-NFYpAH4LaX81_4tZL+yM47g@mail.gmail.com>
 <6511D708-647A-419B-91F5-9A088BA68FAD@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwYbd5KyYQrh_jj-5aqt4863ULNyyxGu-sj=kMbGgM++xQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 4:30 PM, Dan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, September 29, 2014 2:28 PM, Kelly Anderson <
> kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 24, 2014 at 2:48 PM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:
>
> I am pretty tired of Tesla hype. Yes, he was awesome and quirky,
>
> but the one main reason he failed seems to have been lack of
>
> business sense.
>
>
> The Wright brothers also lacked business sense. Airplanes came
>
> of age quicker than patent law and courts would have allowed
>
> only because of the onset of WWI and laws that made their
>
> patents "national interest". It is one of a very small
>
> collection of examples where I grant that the government did
>
> the right thing in pushing technology forward.
>
>
> It is common among inventors to be poor at business. It may be
>
> my own failure as well. We shall see.
>
>
> I'm inclined to question the example, and not simply because of its broken
> window fallacy implications -- i.e., what roads (even outside the aircraft
> industry) weren't taken -- but because patents themselves are an example of
> government intervention. It's not like it was a free market in aircraft
> development and manufacture. Instead, the patent system granted [temporary]
> monopolies. Yes, the government altered the policy during the war, but this
> sounds a lot like the old saw about the government breaking one's legs but
> then providing a really fine wheelchair, then touting the benefits of said
> wheelchair.
>
> (Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying absent patents everything would
> move faster and all of us would get our deepest technological desires to
> come true. Even so, there seems to be much evidence that patents do more
> harm than good. See, for example,
> http://www.ics.uci.edu/community/news/press/view_press?id=89 )
>

Yes, I did think of this while posting. However, in the days of mechanical
invention, I think patent law did far more good than harm. Today, software
and DNA patents do more harm, but pharmaceutical and mechanical patents by
and large seem like a good idea to me.

If you read "The Most Powerful Idea in the World - A STORY OF STEAM,
INDUSTRY, AND INVENTION" by WILLIAM ROSEN, I think you may end up agreeing
with his hypothesis that the British patent system was one of the most
influential elements promoting the industrial revolution.

Yes, I'm a libertarian bordering on anarchy. But one of the prime roles of
government is that of protecting property from thieves. The only difficulty
here is whether you see intellectual property as a valid form of property.
And if it is, then you must concede that the government has a legitimate
interest (or rather the People have a legitimate interest) in protecting
that property (life, liberty and property in the original) from others.

Now, I don't think software patents serve the same purpose today. A
software patent would be like Douglas Adams saying, "I want to patent the
phrase 'For a moment, nothing happened. Then, after a second or so, nothing
continued to happen.'" And to patent all phrases that are even a little bit
like that. Thus also protecting, "I began walking to the store. After a
moment, I continued to walk to the store." which I Kelly Anderson just
wrote somewhat independently of the great said Adams.

Thus software should be protected, IMHO, like authorship, by copyright law,
but not by patent law.

If you disagree that intellectual property is actual property in ANY case,
then we have a different argument on our hands and in that case, I will
side with Benjamin Franklin, who has sufficient libertarian and
capitalistic cajones for my purposes.

-Kelly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140929/727decca/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 02:33:27 2014
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 19:33:27 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Lessons from Tesla?
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwYbd5KyYQrh_jj-5aqt4863ULNyyxGu-sj=kMbGgM++xQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F2F32CAE-4911-41CC-B41A-C18F9561C3A5@gmail.com>
 <2841860371-5520@secure.ericade.net>
 <CAPy8RwZLgHiA9hDO+rUyD_SCZy-NFYpAH4LaX81_4tZL+yM47g@mail.gmail.com>
 <6511D708-647A-419B-91F5-9A088BA68FAD@gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYbd5KyYQrh_jj-5aqt4863ULNyyxGu-sj=kMbGgM++xQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6432DF82-9AA4-4FDD-9DFC-5A185840FC2D@gmail.com>

On Monday, September 29, 2014 4:45 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm inclined to question the example, and not simply because
>> of its broken window fallacy implications -- i.e., what roads
>> (even outside the aircraft industry) weren't taken -- but
>> because patents themselves are an example of government
>> intervention. It's not like it was a free market in aircraft
>> development and manufacture. Instead, the patent system 
>> granted [temporary] monopolies. Yes, the government altered
>> the policy during the war, but this sounds a lot like the old
>> saw about the government breaking one's legs but then providing
>> a really fine wheelchair, then touting the benefits of said
>> wheelchair.
>> 
>> (Don't get me wrong here. I'm not saying absent patents everything
>> would move faster and all of us would get our deepest technological
>> desires to come true. Even so, there seems to be much evidence that
>> patents do more harm than good. See, for example,
>> http://www.ics.uci.edu/community/news/press/view_press?id=89 )
> 
> Yes, I did think of this while posting. However, in the days of
> mechanical invention, I think patent law did far more good than
> harm. Today, software and DNA patents do more harm, but
> pharmaceutical and mechanical patents by and large seem like a
> good idea to me.

I'd have to see evidence for that.

> If you read "The Most Powerful Idea in the World - A STORY OF
> STEAM, INDUSTRY, AND INVENTION" by WILLIAM ROSEN, I think you
> may end up agreeing with his hypothesis that the British patent
> system was one of the most influential elements promoting the 
> industrial revolution.

I admit I haven't read that book... yet! :)

> Yes, I'm a libertarian bordering on anarchy. But one of the prime
> roles of government is that of protecting property from thieves.

For me, as you probably know, a libertarian who is not an anarchist is inconsistent.

> The only difficulty here is whether you see intellectual property
> as a valid form of property. And if it is, then you must concede
> that the government has a legitimate interest (or rather the People
> have a legitimate interest) in protecting that property (life,
> liberty and property in the original) from others.

There are serious problems with intellectual property inside the libertarian ambit. But let's say there is valid intellectual property, a bit problem then would be that the utilitarian argument would be irrelevant -- just like an argument that slavery was more efficient would be irrelevant. And it's harder to see why intellectual property would expire as it does under the current -- save for a ulitarian argument about it. (You wouldn't, as a libertarian, I trust, say that your ownership to your car expired after seventeen years simply because someone else might have produced your car by that time.)

> Now, I don't think software patents serve the same purpose today.
> A software patent would be like Douglas Adams saying, "I want to
> patent the phrase 'For a moment, nothing happened. Then, after a
> second or so, nothing continued to happen.'" And to patent all
> phrases that are even a little bit like that. Thus also protecting,
> "I began walking to the store. After a moment, I continued to walk
> to the store." which I Kelly Anderson just wrote somewhat
> independently of the great said Adams.

The libertarian case against patents also applies to copyrights too and these variations would be irrelevant.

> Thus software should be protected, IMHO, like authorship, by
> copyright law, but not by patent law.

I'm not sure that would prevent much here. And the duration of a copyright is much longer. Litigation around copyrights now can be all over the place, with things like song writers being sued for having a melody similar to another song. Doesn't always succeed, of course, and I'm not saying you must either agree with all aspects of current intellectual property law or embrace an anti-IP position. 

> If you disagree that intellectual property is actual property
> in ANY case, then we have a different argument on our hands

I see it as very problematic, especially from a libertarian point of view. I don't think it meshes well with libertarian theories of property. Of course, that said, yes, many libertarians do support intellectual property. But this isn't a numbers game, but whether it actually makes sense from that perspective.

But the argument I was raising here was two-fold:

1. Government granted patents to the Wrights in the first place, so this wasn't like a market anarchy in patents that the government suddenly intervened in because of war. It was merely trading one intervention for another.

2. It seems like the case for patents as spurs to innovation is not a slamdunk one

> and in that case, I will side with Benjamin Franklin, who has
> sufficient libertarian and capitalistic cajones for my purposes.

This is an alien way of looking at things to me. I don't seek out a figure from history to rally around. I try to see if an argument has merit, regardless of who made it. In any case, Franklin was somewhat against patents, wasn't he? I've heard that he didn't patent any of his inventions, but I'm not well read on his life.

Regards,

Dan
 My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," can be previewed at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140929/9fce3cfb/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 02:39:08 2014
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan)
Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2014 19:39:08 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Fwd:  Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
In-Reply-To: <CAH=2ypXum3zB8WXQoYn8jC8Q=tPWavPNnp3qrVUZHe2Gd=fxfA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1410560744.2227.YahooMailNeo@web161601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAOmnAOyakuWSQAk75Pn9-c5XoMhkJguTr1NjxT_PAR6gV3ks6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQGAnEf2Gn_s+aj0Eg=+v3bGUHFwHSgnp=TRR0P9m5aQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F68ADC7-B556-4A29-B1D9-815758A995E6@gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQ0baupN93foS+T9hsS+X4HjcKK_5vGkAHDvHnwnvxOrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <92A9EAE3-1E2E-42E1-88C9-2661FA91DA82@gmail.com>
 <CABgRZORdAtcX1njsttFB=TeXktbtNQE7fYndKsbNTG+ADc4CWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOSPr=i4uD16Pru0c4_RieuEfOpfSz7OemNxKDXY5Q1oVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <F69B172C-6564-41BB-B0E6-72CB70AD2CD5@gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQ2vWpBHFQG12xbbTRpSXy3NbGON74tAcP5C7xcQVBBxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOmnAOyxcE=1qx=4yLeeqAybTHvawaPLk0sp7eKkWYrgGh7O8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOSgiaPMM30UDMU6tD14ORjZzvK8hYSNS+N1RUirXM5JaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411676302.219.YahooMailNeo@web161604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CABgRZOR84DWXhr+++t=CC-i_bfa=meYiXxA-qRUEpad4pm+dJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQzCVKPhKb=ds-ZHuBjYOo=sXahEAytBtO=DAtkAT3H0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411690860.1023.YahooMailNeo@web161604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CABgRZOTn-h_5uKCN3E=r+VyxYdDjqMtO_2-nFo9BSD4JXbQfpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411769280.43806.YahooMailNeo@web161605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <1411775089.88488.YahooMailNeo@web161603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAH=2ypVv+OfLxbhdov70KN64PPUgrZpMRwcpskKF4WEtXx_UDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411786298.53129.YahooMailNeo@web161605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAH=2ypUddkbNZRZuXj2KrpNaWOnhRKV5XrcbiFfTzj_7Ds9TjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH=2ypXum3zB8WXQoYn8jC8Q=tPWavPNnp3qrVUZHe2Gd=fxfA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <DC0D0FBA-6BBA-4979-AE46-A229A249D7ED@gmail.com>

> On Friday, September 26, 2014 7:41 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> Possibility implies necessity if all possible worlds exist.
> This has interesting implications. For example, if being
> raised from cryinic sleep has only a 1/10^100 probability,
> then in a multiverse where all possibilities are realised
> you will definitely find yourself waking from cryinic sleep.

There's not only the problem of whether possibility implies necessity, but of how an instance in one possible world is related to an instance in another. The relationship you're holding is it's one of identity: the object in one world is the same as the object in another. But that seems debatable. Might it not be that the two objects are related but not the same? For instance, I'm me in this world, but in other worlds there are Dan Usts who are not me. We don't share anything more than that they play the role in those worlds as I do in this one? Also, in many of those worlds, presumably, I don't exist, so whilst in some worlds I might be king, in others peasant, in still others there might be nothing filling the role I play (perhaps I was never born, vertebrates never evolved, stars never formed, the fine structure constant is zero, etc.). So, this is all speculative and there seems to me to be no strong reason to accept the view that any of us is identical with our counterparts, if possible worlds actually exist.

Also, to add another wrinkle, even if there's a multiverse, no reason to believe different universes in it are related in the possible worlds fashion to each other in a way that helps us here. It's kind of like saying this instance of you is all well and fine come what may simply because there are other beings like you somewhere. But just as other universes aren't this one, the other beings like you aren't really you. Your extinction, if it comes about and sad as it would be, would still mean you're gone for good. (Of course, this is just one possible way of interpreting this, but merely positing a multiverse doesn't entail, IMO, all you believe it does.)

Regards,

Dan
 My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," can now be previewed at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140929/d6d38593/attachment.html>

From giulio at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 08:57:15 2014
From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 10:57:15 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
Message-ID: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>

I am writing for a Bitcoin magazine and I want to write an article on
"The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin." Of course the evident connections
are Hal Finney and the fact that the original Bitcoin paper was first
shared on Perry Metzger cryptography mailing list.

I joined this list in 1997 or 98 and I remember some good crypto
discussions at that time, but I am sure there were even more
discussions before. Who of the old-timers (and others) wants to share
memories, facts and opinions?

G.


From anders at aleph.se  Tue Sep 30 08:59:20 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 10:59:20 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
In-Reply-To: <CAAuFJFtuHQLhqHsO57RmWxmT8ZjkBLULoYG4LGBYPiogg-sMXA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3317219629-25483@secure.ericade.net>

Awesome bounds. Need to try to keep up more with the field. But...
Ohad Asor <ohadasor at gmail.com> , 29/9/2014 3:07 AM:The main crunch of the new machine learning theory is to prove generalization bounds that apply to all distributions.
Say you sampled 100 ravens and 60% of them are black. Can you tell something about the unsampled ravens, that will hold regardless to the ravens' color distribution? Or in other words, be true for any unknown underlying distribution?
That is a tall order. While I appreciate the impressive advances in machine learning theory, they rests on a slightly risky assumption: that probability theory holds.?
The problem is that if the outcome space is not well defined, the entire edifice built on the Kolmogorov axioms crashes. In most models and examples we use the outcome space is well defined: ravens have colours. But what if I show you a raven whose colour was *fish*? (or colourless green?) The problem here is of course that there is a category mistake, and we do not allow them in our examples. Unfortunately reality doesn't care: in Taleb's urn example a demon manipulates an urn with 10 white and 10 black balls. What is the probability of drawing a black ball now? The demon may have added a white one. Or a black. Or a red. Or a frog.?
The interesting thing here is that humans take this in a stride: when the possibility of a red ball is mentioned they immediately update their outcome space, and then do it again when the frog shows up. We need clever ways of reasoning rationally about nasty kinds of uncertainty, and most people can only do it weakly (which is why insurance people both get shocked by the example and can easily bring up lists of disasters they have experienced just like it). But this is a key frontier for truly general purpose machine learning beyond just generalizing across all distributions: being able to handle epistemic crises.


Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/ad06fc61/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Tue Sep 30 09:06:11 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 11:06:11 +0200
Subject: [ExI] AI
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEaY_ojnJR+qJzGg_WcLq869dPz_C=+W+PxZu+_=ywLU+A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3318356104-21416@secure.ericade.net>

William Flynn Wallace?<foozler83 at gmail.com>?, 29/9/2014 2:56 PM:


Just recently glial cells have been found to not only supply neurons with nutrition and serve as the blood brain barrier, but actually affect the functioning of them.? We have no idea how or why now.? Given that there are 100 billion neurons with up to 25K connections and up to 5 trillion glial cells, it will be a very long time, maybe never, before we can begin to understand just what is going on up there except in a fairly general way.I did some analysis of this in my WBE roadmap and was not too worried. Glial cells are slow to update, so they take orders of magnitude less computing to simulate than neurons. If they really matter we still may have a higher memory demand, but throwing around large numbers is not a good argument (especially when Moore's law works; see http://www.aleph.se/papers/Monte%20Carlo%20model%20of%20brain%20emulation%20development.pdf ). And we are already doing specific simulations of the brain, it is just that they lack actual scanned connectivity so they are either generic circuits or small well studied microcircuits. Brain emulation is not the road to AI for the next few decades (again, see my paper).




So when we say that we want a computer to think or create we are going to have to specify exactly what we meanYup. This is why de novo AI is hard to do. The wild success of machine learning recently has been because we found a way of getting software to figure out roughly what we mean in some domains by giving them lots of examples.?


Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/f6f8cdb8/attachment.html>

From ohadasor at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 09:17:02 2014
From: ohadasor at gmail.com (Ohad Asor)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 12:17:02 +0300
Subject: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
In-Reply-To: <3317219629-25483@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CAAuFJFtuHQLhqHsO57RmWxmT8ZjkBLULoYG4LGBYPiogg-sMXA@mail.gmail.com>
 <3317219629-25483@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAAuFJFu50+3ocjz0eXwxeJuhyvmakytwitD4+Qv08QM7e9DKRQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

>
> The problem is that if the outcome space is not well defined, the entire
> edifice built on the Kolmogorov axioms crashes. In most models and examples
> we use the outcome space is well defined: ravens have colours. But what if
> I show you a raven whose colour was *fish*? (or colourless green?
>



Sure. That's why we speak about a great amount of variables. What if the
input and output of our learner will be video and audio? I don't see any
obstacle implementing it. We got the mathematical promises. We seem to got
enough computational power. We got plenty of algorithms. Just two things
need to be solved: how to train this brain (it's apparently more difficult
than all mentioned tasks), and, who will convince investors for such a
project? :)

Generalization error bounds, VC Dimension etc. are unfortunately not
informative in Google search. An informative example I quickly found online
is here <https://cs.uwaterloo.ca/~shai/Chapters_4_CS886.pdf>, see corollary
1 on page 27.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/0bb3f08a/attachment.html>

From msd001 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 12:30:34 2014
From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 08:30:34 -0400
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAOJFdbKo=sshS5=YRxxK6ny7uu3bHVGGE5LJeP2UHvfF2F8FMw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com> wrote:
> I am writing for a Bitcoin magazine and I want to write an article on
> "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin." Of course the evident connections
> are Hal Finney and the fact that the original Bitcoin paper was first
> shared on Perry Metzger cryptography mailing list.
>
> I joined this list in 1997 or 98 and I remember some good crypto
> discussions at that time, but I am sure there were even more
> discussions before. Who of the old-timers (and others) wants to share
> memories, facts and opinions?

I was not involved then, so have no direct experience to offer.  However...

Are non-Extropians going to appreciate the suggestion that Bitcoin is
'rooted' in some group they've never heard of?  Are you trying to
advertise Extropy to a large audience of Bitcoin fans?  I guess I'm
just unclear from that title what your goal might be.  Given the
success (or not) of an article seems to be directly related to
clickiness [i know, but what's the word?] of the title, I'm proposing
feedback on that point alone.

If the analogy is that Bitcoin's roots grew from Extropy's fertile
soil, then I'd feel less like you are trying to use Bitcoin to drive
attention [mind-share] into your group - and instead give me some more
history about Bitcoin and the intellectual environment from which it
sprouted. (which I assume is your real intent)

I don't know the Bitcoin audience but I imagine the Extropy audience
will be very interested in reading about the less-evident connections.
Good luck Giulio :)


From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 30 13:20:20 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 06:20:20 -0700
Subject: [ExI] wordplay for a tuesday morning
Message-ID: <00ba01cfdcb1$493e1040$dbba30c0$@att.net>

 

 

 

 

Just because this "life" may all be just a simulation doesn't mean we can't
have some fun while we "think" "we" are "here."  spike


 1.  The fattest knight at King Arthur's round table was Sir Cumference. He
acquired his size from too much pi.

 2.  I thought I saw an eye doctor on an Alaskan island but it turned out to
be an optical Aleutian.

 3.  She was only a whiskey maker but he loved her still.

 4.  A rubber band pistol was confiscated from algebra class because it was
a weapon of math disruption.

 5.  No matter how much you push the envelope it'll still be stationery.

 6.  A dog gave birth to puppies near the road and was cited for littering.

 7.  A grenade thrown into a kitchen in France would result in Linoleum
Blownapart.

 8.  Two silk worms had a race.  They ended up in a tie.

 9.  A hole has been found in the nudist camp wall.  The police are looking
into it.

 10.  Time flies like an arrow.  Fruit flies like a banana.

 11.  Atheism is a non-prophet organization.

 12.  Two hats were hanging on a hat rack in the hallway.  One hat said to
the other, "You stay here.  I'll go on a head."

 13.  I wondered why the baseball kept getting bigger.  Then it hit me.

 14.  A sign on the lawn at a drug rehab center said, "Keep off the Grass."

 15.  The midget fortune-teller who escaped from prison was a small medium
at large.

 16.  The soldier who survived mustard gas and pepper spray is now a
seasoned veteran.

 17.  A backward poet writes inverse.

 18.  In a democracy, it's your vote that counts.  In feudalism, it's your
count that votes.

 20. If you jumped off the bridge in Paris, you'd be in Seine.

 21.  A vulture boards an airplane carrying two dead raccoons.  The
stewardess looks at him and says, "I'm sorry, sir, only one carrion allowed
per passenger."

 22.  Two Eskimos sitting in a kayak were chilly so they lit a fire in the
craft.  Not surprisingly it sank proving once again that you can't have your
kayak and heat it too.

 23.  Two hydrogen atoms meet.  One says, "I've lost my electron."  The
other says, "Are you sure?"  The first replies, "Yes, I'm positive."

 24.  There was the person who sent ten puns to friends with the hope that
at least one of the puns would make them laugh.  No pun in ten did.

 

{8^D

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/a32675d9/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 30 13:26:02 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 06:26:02 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00bf01cfdcb2$15ce3a40$416aaec0$@att.net>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf
Of Giulio Prisco
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 1:57 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"

I am writing for a Bitcoin magazine and I want to write an article on "The
Extropian Roots of Bitcoin." Of course the evident connections are Hal
Finney and the fact that the original Bitcoin paper was first shared on
Perry Metzger cryptography mailing list.

I joined this list in 1997 or 98 and I remember some good crypto discussions
at that time, but I am sure there were even more discussions before. Who of
the old-timers (and others) wants to share memories, facts and opinions?

G.
_______________________________________________


Cool, excellent Giulio, I am glad someone is doing this.  I was a lurker in
those days.  I read Hal's commentary and Perry's, but didn't feel competent
to add my comments.  There was plenty of really interesting chatter back in
the 1990s.

spike



From kanzure at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 13:45:15 2014
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 08:45:15 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <CAOJFdbKo=sshS5=YRxxK6ny7uu3bHVGGE5LJeP2UHvfF2F8FMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKo=sshS5=YRxxK6ny7uu3bHVGGE5LJeP2UHvfF2F8FMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABaSBawzKXYLDD_M+1ARv2dMea-_FhOoijjAFchA14ERDR-s0A@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:

> I don't know the Bitcoin audience but I imagine the Extropy audience
> will be very interested in reading about the less-evident connections.
>

The connections are there for to anyone paying attention. There are just
way too many extropians involved for it to be a coincidence, like Nick
Szabo, Wei Dai, Hal Finney, and Perry Metzger. The early recommendation of
Julian Assange is rather interesting and possibly extropic, but Wikileaks
was under intense pressure at the time anyway, so he probably found out
about Bitcoin for that reason.

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/0ec7bcf3/attachment.html>

From giulio at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 13:47:42 2014
From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 15:47:42 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <CABaSBawzKXYLDD_M+1ARv2dMea-_FhOoijjAFchA14ERDR-s0A@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKo=sshS5=YRxxK6ny7uu3bHVGGE5LJeP2UHvfF2F8FMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABaSBawzKXYLDD_M+1ARv2dMea-_FhOoijjAFchA14ERDR-s0A@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKTCJydYk=PaXriwHfv6c-SF4XCdX_-eCZksaMDT6Tp+NUbBjw@mail.gmail.com>

Bryan, what is "the early recommendation of Julian Assange is rather
interesting and possibly extropic"?

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 3:45 PM, Bryan Bishop <kanzure at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 7:30 AM, Mike Dougherty <msd001 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I don't know the Bitcoin audience but I imagine the Extropy audience
>> will be very interested in reading about the less-evident connections.
>
>
> The connections are there for to anyone paying attention. There are just way
> too many extropians involved for it to be a coincidence, like Nick Szabo,
> Wei Dai, Hal Finney, and Perry Metzger. The early recommendation of Julian
> Assange is rather interesting and possibly extropic, but Wikileaks was under
> intense pressure at the time anyway, so he probably found out about Bitcoin
> for that reason.
>
> - Bryan
> http://heybryan.org/
> 1 512 203 0507
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>


From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 30 13:48:26 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 06:48:26 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <CAOJFdbKo=sshS5=YRxxK6ny7uu3bHVGGE5LJeP2UHvfF2F8FMw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKo=sshS5=YRxxK6ny7uu3bHVGGE5LJeP2UHvfF2F8FMw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00c301cfdcb5$36db80a0$a49281e0$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
Subject: Re: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com> wrote:
>>... I am writing for a Bitcoin magazine and I want to write an article on 
> "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin." ...


>...If the analogy is that Bitcoin's roots grew from Extropy's fertile
soil...

I can imagine future historians will be mining the Extropy archives for
decades, marveling that it was one of the early meeting places for
future-minded hipsters.  

When Eliezer Yudkowsky was a teenager, he used to post a lot here.  A meme
he sometimes said which really astonish me for its insight was along the
lines of "Be careful what you post here, or anywhere.  The internet never
forgets."

He was right.  I may someday regret some of the silliness I posted here,
particularly the comedy, that sex lamas business and the other stuff.  Or
not; I had fun with it then, and would probably laugh again if I read some
of the goofiness I posted here a long time ago when I was a mere child of 30
years.  

Some of those wordplay storms were hilarious.  We don't do those anymore.
Remember when anyone would make any funny typo, and of course Damien
Broderick and I would jump on it, then sometimes Max and the other infamous
punsters, and WOW that was great geek fun.

spike







From kanzure at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 14:08:52 2014
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:08:52 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <CAKTCJydYk=PaXriwHfv6c-SF4XCdX_-eCZksaMDT6Tp+NUbBjw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKo=sshS5=YRxxK6ny7uu3bHVGGE5LJeP2UHvfF2F8FMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABaSBawzKXYLDD_M+1ARv2dMea-_FhOoijjAFchA14ERDR-s0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKTCJydYk=PaXriwHfv6c-SF4XCdX_-eCZksaMDT6Tp+NUbBjw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABaSBaxHbim=z-oTFy94ZM4PZUY9vQhbs+rYbfCdmW52KQ-rpw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:47 AM, Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com> wrote:

> Bryan, what is "the early recommendation of Julian Assange is rather
> interesting and possibly extropic"?
>

Well, I mean that his information regarding Bitcoin may have been directly
related to his extropic roots. Julian told Eric Schmidt about Bitcoin
rather enthusiastically back in 2011, with an amount of detail that
indicated he learned of Bitcoin something more than a day prior.

http://wikileaks.org/Transcript-Meeting-Assange-Schmidt?nocache

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/5fedf340/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 30 14:00:15 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 07:00:15 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <CAKTCJydYk=PaXriwHfv6c-SF4XCdX_-eCZksaMDT6Tp+NUbBjw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKo=sshS5=YRxxK6ny7uu3bHVGGE5LJeP2UHvfF2F8FMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABaSBawzKXYLDD_M+1ARv2dMea-_FhOoijjAFchA14ERDR-s0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKTCJydYk=PaXriwHfv6c-SF4XCdX_-eCZksaMDT6Tp+NUbBjw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00f401cfdcb6$dd4b9370$97e2ba50$@att.net>



>... On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco
Subject: Re: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"

Bryan, what is "the early recommendation of Julian Assange is rather
interesting and possibly extropic"?


How many here remember Julian's few posts?  I don't even remember exactly
what he said, but I recall I was generally sympathetic with his main ideas:
he was a hardline openness advocate.  He caused a wild reaction from another
guy who was on the other end: a hardline privacy advocate.  A raucous flamey
debate ensued.  Neither of those two got along well with the other kids, and
both left.

The other guy was talking about quad-copter camera drones back then, and how
we could legally shoot them down, and so forth.  This was 15 years before
that product showed up on the market, the kind you can now buy for three
digits if you google on quadcopter camera drone, and make videos like this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pfZvimPkKio

You could fly over the nudist colony and such as that.

spike



From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 14:40:00 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:40:00 -0500
Subject: [ExI] wordplay for a tuesday morning
In-Reply-To: <00ba01cfdcb1$493e1040$dbba30c0$@att.net>
References: <00ba01cfdcb1$493e1040$dbba30c0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEbfe9aiRTgD_R0hUHcNS80PXZ=Wzai_sdJZFNAu4p3LAg@mail.gmail.com>

?"Mommy, Mommy, what is a woman's yet?"
"Dear, women don't have a yet?  Where did you get that idea?"
"Well, on TV they said that a woman had been shot and the bullet was in her
yet."

bill w?


>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Just because this ?life? may all be just a simulation doesn?t mean we
> can?t have some fun while we ?think? ?we? are ?here.?  spike
>
>
>  1.  The fattest knight at King Arthur's round table was Sir Cumference.
> He acquired his size from too much pi.
>
>  2.  I thought I saw an eye doctor on an Alaskan island but it turned out
> to be an optical Aleutian.
>
>  3.  She was only a whiskey maker but he loved her still.
>
>  4.  A rubber band pistol was confiscated from algebra class because it
> was a weapon of math disruption.
>
>  5.  No matter how much you push the envelope it'll still be stationery.
>
>  6.  A dog gave birth to puppies near the road and was cited for littering.
>
>  7.  A grenade thrown into a kitchen in France would result in Linoleum
> Blownapart.
>
>  8.  Two silk worms had a race.  They ended up in a tie.
>
>  9.  A hole has been found in the nudist camp wall.  The police are
> looking into it.
>
>  10.  Time flies like an arrow.  Fruit flies like a banana.
>
>  11.  Atheism is a non-prophet organization.
>
>  12.  Two hats were hanging on a hat rack in the hallway.  One hat said to
> the other, "You stay here.  I'll go on a head."
>
>  13.  I wondered why the baseball kept getting bigger.  Then it hit me.
>
>  14.  A sign on the lawn at a drug rehab center said, "Keep off the Grass."
>
>  15.  The midget fortune-teller who escaped from prison was a small medium
> at large.
>
>  16.  The soldier who survived mustard gas and pepper spray is now a
> seasoned veteran.
>
>  17.  A backward poet writes inverse.
>
>  18.  In a democracy, it's your vote that counts.  In feudalism, it's your
> count that votes.
>
>  20. If you jumped off the bridge in Paris, you'd be in Seine.
>
>  21.  A vulture boards an airplane carrying two dead raccoons.  The
> stewardess looks at him and says, "I'm sorry, sir, only one carrion allowed
> per passenger."
>
>  22.  Two Eskimos sitting in a kayak were chilly so they lit a fire in the
> craft.  Not surprisingly it sank proving once again that you can't have
> your kayak and heat it too.
>
>  23.  Two hydrogen atoms meet.  One says, "I've lost my electron."  The
> other says, "Are you sure?"  The first replies, "Yes, I'm positive."
>
>  24.  There was the person who sent ten puns to friends with the hope that
> at least one of the puns would make them laugh.  No pun in ten did.
>
>
>
> {8^D
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/180b0d76/attachment.html>

From mlatorra at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 14:40:26 2014
From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 08:40:26 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <00c301cfdcb5$36db80a0$a49281e0$@att.net>
References: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKo=sshS5=YRxxK6ny7uu3bHVGGE5LJeP2UHvfF2F8FMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c301cfdcb5$36db80a0$a49281e0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPGs0J-Yo0SnOoEeLFd8Ck4_CmCJat_y34c4LTmJ5-yrbqbTCw@mail.gmail.com>

The Extropy archives will indeed be a goldmine for future historians. And
Eliezer was correct that the Internet is forever and we ought be careful
what we post. When he was a teenager in Chicagoland and about to be kicked
out of the nest by his parents, he posted some heartfelt, desperate
pleadings. From his current perspective in Silicon Valley, hobnobbing with
Peter Theil and ruling the roost at MIRI, those old postings might seem
embarassing. But we ALL have similarly embarassing postings in our pasts.
So let's each and all be charitable to one another.

Best,
Mike LaTorra
On Sep 30, 2014 8:03 AM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

>
> >... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
> Subject: Re: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>... I am writing for a Bitcoin magazine and I want to write an article on
> > "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin." ...
>
>
> >...If the analogy is that Bitcoin's roots grew from Extropy's fertile
> soil...
>
> I can imagine future historians will be mining the Extropy archives for
> decades, marveling that it was one of the early meeting places for
> future-minded hipsters.
>
> When Eliezer Yudkowsky was a teenager, he used to post a lot here.  A meme
> he sometimes said which really astonish me for its insight was along the
> lines of "Be careful what you post here, or anywhere.  The internet never
> forgets."
>
> He was right.  I may someday regret some of the silliness I posted here,
> particularly the comedy, that sex lamas business and the other stuff.  Or
> not; I had fun with it then, and would probably laugh again if I read some
> of the goofiness I posted here a long time ago when I was a mere child of
> 30
> years.
>
> Some of those wordplay storms were hilarious.  We don't do those anymore.
> Remember when anyone would make any funny typo, and of course Damien
> Broderick and I would jump on it, then sometimes Max and the other infamous
> punsters, and WOW that was great geek fun.
>
> spike
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/3ca6a3b1/attachment.html>

From giulio at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 14:45:25 2014
From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:45:25 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <CAPGs0J-Yo0SnOoEeLFd8Ck4_CmCJat_y34c4LTmJ5-yrbqbTCw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKo=sshS5=YRxxK6ny7uu3bHVGGE5LJeP2UHvfF2F8FMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c301cfdcb5$36db80a0$a49281e0$@att.net>
 <CAPGs0J-Yo0SnOoEeLFd8Ck4_CmCJat_y34c4LTmJ5-yrbqbTCw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKTCJyfA-VfUs0WOQOfYQpDRxaBn64uZOpkxVDDxVx30RENgxA@mail.gmail.com>

Mike I just found a very embarrassing old post of yours, send me one
bitcoin or else.... ;-)

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Michael LaTorra <mlatorra at gmail.com> wrote:
> The Extropy archives will indeed be a goldmine for future historians. And
> Eliezer was correct that the Internet is forever and we ought be careful
> what we post. When he was a teenager in Chicagoland and about to be kicked
> out of the nest by his parents, he posted some heartfelt, desperate
> pleadings. From his current perspective in Silicon Valley, hobnobbing with
> Peter Theil and ruling the roost at MIRI, those old postings might seem
> embarassing. But we ALL have similarly embarassing postings in our pasts. So
> let's each and all be charitable to one another.
>
> Best,
> Mike LaTorra
>
> On Sep 30, 2014 8:03 AM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>>
>>
>> >... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
>> Subject: Re: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>... I am writing for a Bitcoin magazine and I want to write an article
>> >> on
>> > "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin." ...
>>
>>
>> >...If the analogy is that Bitcoin's roots grew from Extropy's fertile
>> soil...
>>
>> I can imagine future historians will be mining the Extropy archives for
>> decades, marveling that it was one of the early meeting places for
>> future-minded hipsters.
>>
>> When Eliezer Yudkowsky was a teenager, he used to post a lot here.  A meme
>> he sometimes said which really astonish me for its insight was along the
>> lines of "Be careful what you post here, or anywhere.  The internet never
>> forgets."
>>
>> He was right.  I may someday regret some of the silliness I posted here,
>> particularly the comedy, that sex lamas business and the other stuff.  Or
>> not; I had fun with it then, and would probably laugh again if I read some
>> of the goofiness I posted here a long time ago when I was a mere child of
>> 30
>> years.
>>
>> Some of those wordplay storms were hilarious.  We don't do those anymore.
>> Remember when anyone would make any funny typo, and of course Damien
>> Broderick and I would jump on it, then sometimes Max and the other
>> infamous
>> punsters, and WOW that was great geek fun.
>>
>> spike
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 30 15:00:22 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 08:00:22 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <CAPGs0J-Yo0SnOoEeLFd8Ck4_CmCJat_y34c4LTmJ5-yrbqbTCw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKo=sshS5=YRxxK6ny7uu3bHVGGE5LJeP2UHvfF2F8FMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c301cfdcb5$36db80a0$a49281e0$@att.net>
 <CAPGs0J-Yo0SnOoEeLFd8Ck4_CmCJat_y34c4LTmJ5-yrbqbTCw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <018801cfdcbf$438249b0$ca86dd10$@att.net>

 

 

>? On Behalf Of Michael LaTorra
Subject: Re: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"

 

>?The Extropy archives will indeed be a goldmine for future historians. And Eliezer was correct that the Internet is forever and we ought be careful what we post. When he was a teenager in Chicagoland and about to be kicked out of the nest by his parents, he posted some heartfelt, desperate pleadings. From his current perspective in Silicon Valley, hobnobbing with Peter Theil and ruling the roost at MIRI, those old postings might seem embarassing. But we ALL have similarly embarassing postings in our pasts. So let's each and all be charitable to one another.  Best, Mike LaTorra

 

 

Ja.  Those comments were a result of Eliezer?s earliest posts on a forum dedicated to how much they hated Barney, a TV character from the early 1990s.  Eliezer?s younger brother was a big fan, which annoyed his 12 yr old brother.  As I recall the forum was called ?Purple Dinosaur, die die die!?  He had posted on there under his full name, and lamented there is no way to go back and erase any of that.  {8^D  I told him Don?t worry about it pal, you were twelve.  Most of us did embarrassing stuff back then.  Some of us are still doing embarrassing stuff now.

It does bring up some interesting points about how the internet changes the nature of information.  College, wild party, pictures show up with you passed out on the floor naked with your head in a waste basket, as an Epic Fail poster.  It goes viral.  Someone posts, HEY that?s old Festrina Carbuncle.  I was at that party, it was a hoot.  Har har funny, but now any time Festrina tries to climb the corporate ladder or run for public office, this epic fail picture shows up with every internet search.

spike

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/fa03f4b5/attachment.html>

From pharos at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 15:16:41 2014
From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:16:41 +0100
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <00c301cfdcb5$36db80a0$a49281e0$@att.net>
References: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKo=sshS5=YRxxK6ny7uu3bHVGGE5LJeP2UHvfF2F8FMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c301cfdcb5$36db80a0$a49281e0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAL_armiYQvw_VveCpVibKO1ph84fmnTWkRdXWm=gHRx7jBQHAA@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:48 PM, spike  wrote:
<snip>
> Some of those wordplay storms were hilarious.  We don't do those anymore.
> Remember when anyone would make any funny typo, and of course Damien
> Broderick and I would jump on it, then sometimes Max and the other infamous
> punsters, and WOW that was great geek fun.
>
>

I still smile when I remember Damien and his ilk.  :)

BillK


From mlatorra at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 15:30:03 2014
From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:30:03 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <CAKTCJyfA-VfUs0WOQOfYQpDRxaBn64uZOpkxVDDxVx30RENgxA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKo=sshS5=YRxxK6ny7uu3bHVGGE5LJeP2UHvfF2F8FMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c301cfdcb5$36db80a0$a49281e0$@att.net>
 <CAPGs0J-Yo0SnOoEeLFd8Ck4_CmCJat_y34c4LTmJ5-yrbqbTCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKTCJyfA-VfUs0WOQOfYQpDRxaBn64uZOpkxVDDxVx30RENgxA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPGs0J--be3uZg50vpwhY_DafDUd29iRo4bhbO4g587cLS63hA@mail.gmail.com>

Only *one* embarassing post of mine? ;)
On Sep 30, 2014 8:45 AM, "Giulio Prisco" <giulio at gmail.com> wrote:

> Mike I just found a very embarrassing old post of yours, send me one
> bitcoin or else.... ;-)
>
> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Michael LaTorra <mlatorra at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > The Extropy archives will indeed be a goldmine for future historians. And
> > Eliezer was correct that the Internet is forever and we ought be careful
> > what we post. When he was a teenager in Chicagoland and about to be
> kicked
> > out of the nest by his parents, he posted some heartfelt, desperate
> > pleadings. From his current perspective in Silicon Valley, hobnobbing
> with
> > Peter Theil and ruling the roost at MIRI, those old postings might seem
> > embarassing. But we ALL have similarly embarassing postings in our
> pasts. So
> > let's each and all be charitable to one another.
> >
> > Best,
> > Mike LaTorra
> >
> > On Sep 30, 2014 8:03 AM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> >... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
> >> Subject: Re: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
> >>
> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >> >>... I am writing for a Bitcoin magazine and I want to write an article
> >> >> on
> >> > "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin." ...
> >>
> >>
> >> >...If the analogy is that Bitcoin's roots grew from Extropy's fertile
> >> soil...
> >>
> >> I can imagine future historians will be mining the Extropy archives for
> >> decades, marveling that it was one of the early meeting places for
> >> future-minded hipsters.
> >>
> >> When Eliezer Yudkowsky was a teenager, he used to post a lot here.  A
> meme
> >> he sometimes said which really astonish me for its insight was along the
> >> lines of "Be careful what you post here, or anywhere.  The internet
> never
> >> forgets."
> >>
> >> He was right.  I may someday regret some of the silliness I posted here,
> >> particularly the comedy, that sex lamas business and the other stuff.
> Or
> >> not; I had fun with it then, and would probably laugh again if I read
> some
> >> of the goofiness I posted here a long time ago when I was a mere child
> of
> >> 30
> >> years.
> >>
> >> Some of those wordplay storms were hilarious.  We don't do those
> anymore.
> >> Remember when anyone would make any funny typo, and of course Damien
> >> Broderick and I would jump on it, then sometimes Max and the other
> >> infamous
> >> punsters, and WOW that was great geek fun.
> >>
> >> spike
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/97a2b5ed/attachment.html>

From giulio at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 15:39:25 2014
From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:39:25 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <CAPGs0J--be3uZg50vpwhY_DafDUd29iRo4bhbO4g587cLS63hA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKo=sshS5=YRxxK6ny7uu3bHVGGE5LJeP2UHvfF2F8FMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c301cfdcb5$36db80a0$a49281e0$@att.net>
 <CAPGs0J-Yo0SnOoEeLFd8Ck4_CmCJat_y34c4LTmJ5-yrbqbTCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKTCJyfA-VfUs0WOQOfYQpDRxaBn64uZOpkxVDDxVx30RENgxA@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPGs0J--be3uZg50vpwhY_DafDUd29iRo4bhbO4g587cLS63hA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKTCJyd8SCAuMT9Vp2L6xKspbyZp_5oBs2GN-X8CemkDXBpQPQ@mail.gmail.com>

That's how it starts ;-) don't forget I am Italian!

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Michael LaTorra <mlatorra at gmail.com> wrote:
> Only *one* embarassing post of mine? ;)
>
> On Sep 30, 2014 8:45 AM, "Giulio Prisco" <giulio at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Mike I just found a very embarrassing old post of yours, send me one
>> bitcoin or else.... ;-)
>>
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:40 PM, Michael LaTorra <mlatorra at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>> > The Extropy archives will indeed be a goldmine for future historians.
>> > And
>> > Eliezer was correct that the Internet is forever and we ought be careful
>> > what we post. When he was a teenager in Chicagoland and about to be
>> > kicked
>> > out of the nest by his parents, he posted some heartfelt, desperate
>> > pleadings. From his current perspective in Silicon Valley, hobnobbing
>> > with
>> > Peter Theil and ruling the roost at MIRI, those old postings might seem
>> > embarassing. But we ALL have similarly embarassing postings in our
>> > pasts. So
>> > let's each and all be charitable to one another.
>> >
>> > Best,
>> > Mike LaTorra
>> >
>> > On Sep 30, 2014 8:03 AM, "spike" <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >... On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty
>> >> Subject: Re: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of
>> >> Bitcoin"
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:57 AM, Giulio Prisco <giulio at gmail.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >> >>... I am writing for a Bitcoin magazine and I want to write an
>> >> >> article
>> >> >> on
>> >> > "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin." ...
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> >...If the analogy is that Bitcoin's roots grew from Extropy's fertile
>> >> soil...
>> >>
>> >> I can imagine future historians will be mining the Extropy archives for
>> >> decades, marveling that it was one of the early meeting places for
>> >> future-minded hipsters.
>> >>
>> >> When Eliezer Yudkowsky was a teenager, he used to post a lot here.  A
>> >> meme
>> >> he sometimes said which really astonish me for its insight was along
>> >> the
>> >> lines of "Be careful what you post here, or anywhere.  The internet
>> >> never
>> >> forgets."
>> >>
>> >> He was right.  I may someday regret some of the silliness I posted
>> >> here,
>> >> particularly the comedy, that sex lamas business and the other stuff.
>> >> Or
>> >> not; I had fun with it then, and would probably laugh again if I read
>> >> some
>> >> of the goofiness I posted here a long time ago when I was a mere child
>> >> of
>> >> 30
>> >> years.
>> >>
>> >> Some of those wordplay storms were hilarious.  We don't do those
>> >> anymore.
>> >> Remember when anyone would make any funny typo, and of course Damien
>> >> Broderick and I would jump on it, then sometimes Max and the other
>> >> infamous
>> >> punsters, and WOW that was great geek fun.
>> >>
>> >> spike
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>> >
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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 aleksei at iki.fi  Tue Sep 30 15:41:38 2014
From: aleksei at iki.fi (Aleksei Riikonen)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 18:41:38 +0300
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAF=HMEAY-rMXS53qPiU1o84qnWPM3bqiyJnU4koDYLiLGBsFaw@mail.gmail.com>

Well here's some fun speculation for you, on how bitcoin was born,
with some extropians featuring prominently in the plot:

http://fuk.io/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto-the-truth/

-- 
Aleksei Riikonen - http://www.iki.fi/aleksei


From giulio at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 15:59:25 2014
From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:59:25 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <CAF=HMEAY-rMXS53qPiU1o84qnWPM3bqiyJnU4koDYLiLGBsFaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF=HMEAY-rMXS53qPiU1o84qnWPM3bqiyJnU4koDYLiLGBsFaw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAKTCJyfFhno3NAUBXPfNtMYKwA4aDj+P6QfEBPWy8TrEgZkLVQ@mail.gmail.com>

Thanks Aleksei. I think the conclusions of the article are, as you
say, fun speculation, but the article is very useful indeed.

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:41 PM, Aleksei Riikonen <aleksei at iki.fi> wrote:
> Well here's some fun speculation for you, on how bitcoin was born,
> with some extropians featuring prominently in the plot:
>
> http://fuk.io/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto-the-truth/
>
> --
> Aleksei Riikonen - http://www.iki.fi/aleksei
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat


From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 30 16:17:45 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:17:45 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <CAKTCJyfA-VfUs0WOQOfYQpDRxaBn64uZOpkxVDDxVx30RENgxA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKo=sshS5=YRxxK6ny7uu3bHVGGE5LJeP2UHvfF2F8FMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c301cfdcb5$36db80a0$a49281e0$@att.net>
 <CAPGs0J-Yo0SnOoEeLFd8Ck4_CmCJat_y34c4LTmJ5-yrbqbTCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKTCJyfA-VfUs0WOQOfYQpDRxaBn64uZOpkxVDDxVx30RENgxA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01b101cfdcca$12579d30$3706d790$@att.net>


>... On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco
Subject: Re: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"

>...Mike I just found a very embarrassing old post of yours, send me one
bitcoin or else.... ;-)


That trick would never work on me.  I keep writing embarrassing new posts.
{8^D

spike



From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 30 16:21:14 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 09:21:14 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <CAL_armiYQvw_VveCpVibKO1ph84fmnTWkRdXWm=gHRx7jBQHAA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKo=sshS5=YRxxK6ny7uu3bHVGGE5LJeP2UHvfF2F8FMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c301cfdcb5$36db80a0$a49281e0$@att.net>
 <CAL_armiYQvw_VveCpVibKO1ph84fmnTWkRdXWm=gHRx7jBQHAA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01ee01cfdcca$8f666270$ae332750$@att.net>



-----Original Message-----
From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf
Of BillK
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 8:17 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 2:48 PM, spike  wrote:
<snip>
> ... any funny typo, and of course Damien 
> Broderick and I would jump on it, then sometimes Max and the other 
> infamous punsters, and WOW that was great geek fun.


>...I still smile when I remember Damien and his ilk.  :)

BillK
_______________________________________________


In case you thought that sounded like an epitaph, Damien is alive and well.
He recently sent me an autographed copy of his latest book Intelligence
Unbound.  Not sure if his ilk are still around however.  Ilk season started
last week and many of them headed for the high country.

spike




From kanzure at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 16:41:03 2014
From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 11:41:03 -0500
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <CAF=HMEAY-rMXS53qPiU1o84qnWPM3bqiyJnU4koDYLiLGBsFaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAF=HMEAY-rMXS53qPiU1o84qnWPM3bqiyJnU4koDYLiLGBsFaw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CABaSBay-gnx4Dev-mvfhzGTaNb6D32vY1KjvSh_8ra6LEApB1Q@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 10:41 AM, Aleksei Riikonen <aleksei at iki.fi> wrote:

> Well here's some fun speculation for you, on how bitcoin was born,
> with some extropians featuring prominently in the plot:
>
> http://fuk.io/who-is-satoshi-nakamoto-the-truth/
>

You can go even further back, to the USENET conspiracy theories about Nick
Szabo, Hal Finney, Perry Metzger, Wei Dai, John Gilmore, etc:
http://borg.uu3.net/ldetweil/medusa/medusa.html

- Bryan
http://heybryan.org/
1 512 203 0507
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/65d09034/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 17:22:18 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 12:22:18 -0500
Subject: [ExI] AI
In-Reply-To: <3318356104-21416@secure.ericade.net>
References: <CAO+xQEaY_ojnJR+qJzGg_WcLq869dPz_C=+W+PxZu+_=ywLU+A@mail.gmail.com>
 <3318356104-21416@secure.ericade.net>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEatSx4V7YaH8=zL4tE6n9O4DHQD0_tgJvZuS3YtROQosA@mail.gmail.com>

we found a way of getting software to figure out roughly what we mean in
some domains by giving them lots of examples.

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

Does this mean that the computer is doing induction?  bill w

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:06 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

> William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> , 29/9/2014 2:56 PM:
>
> Just recently glial cells have been found to not only supply neurons with
> nutrition and serve as the blood brain barrier, but actually affect the
> functioning of them.  We have no idea how or why now.  Given that there are
> 100 billion neurons with up to 25K connections and up to 5 trillion glial
> cells, it will be a very long time, maybe never, before we can begin to
> understand just what is going on up there except in a fairly general way.
>
> I did some analysis of this in my WBE roadmap and was not too worried.
> Glial cells are slow to update, so they take orders of magnitude less
> computing to simulate than neurons. If they really matter we still may have
> a higher memory demand, but throwing around large numbers is not a good
> argument (especially when Moore's law works; see
> http://www.aleph.se/papers/Monte%20Carlo%20model%20of%20brain%20emulation%20development.pdf
> ). And we are already doing specific simulations of the brain, it is just
> that they lack actual scanned connectivity so they are either generic
> circuits or small well studied microcircuits. Brain emulation is not the
> road to AI for the next few decades (again, see my paper).
>
> So when we say that we want a computer to think or create we are going to
> have to specify exactly what we mean
>
> Yup. This is why de novo AI is hard to do. The wild success of machine
> learning recently has been because we found a way of getting software to
> figure out roughly what we mean in some domains by giving them lots of
> examples.
>
>
> Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford
> University
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/594a13ab/attachment.html>

From johnkclark at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 17:55:10 2014
From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 13:55:10 -0400
Subject: [ExI] wordplay for a tuesday morning
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEbfe9aiRTgD_R0hUHcNS80PXZ=Wzai_sdJZFNAu4p3LAg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00ba01cfdcb1$493e1040$dbba30c0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEbfe9aiRTgD_R0hUHcNS80PXZ=Wzai_sdJZFNAu4p3LAg@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAJPayv2W7R1=wnPo5HaO2zOT+2q134udJrYF8V88EuaFBbgBnQ@mail.gmail.com>

Are you made of Copper and Tellurium?  Because you're CuTe.

A biologist, a physicist, and a mathematician are sitting in an outdoor
cafe. They watch two people go into a building across the street. Shortly
thereafter, three people come out.
"Hmm," says the biologist. "It looks like they reproduced."
"Nah," says the physicist. "There was obviously error in our initial
measurement."
The mathematician looks up from his coffee. "Who cares? If another person
goes in, it'll be empty."

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/f24a7de4/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 30 19:02:46 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 12:02:46 -0700
Subject: [ExI] wordplay for a tuesday morning
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2W7R1=wnPo5HaO2zOT+2q134udJrYF8V88EuaFBbgBnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00ba01cfdcb1$493e1040$dbba30c0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEbfe9aiRTgD_R0hUHcNS80PXZ=Wzai_sdJZFNAu4p3LAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2W7R1=wnPo5HaO2zOT+2q134udJrYF8V88EuaFBbgBnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <005f01cfdce1$1fd81180$5f883480$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 10:55 AM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] wordplay for a tuesday morning

 

>?Are you made of Copper and Tellurium?  Because you're CuTe?

Heheheheh.



A biologist, a physicist, and a mathematician are sitting in an outdoor cafe. They watch two people go into a building across the street. Shortly thereafter, three people come out.
"Hmm," says the biologist. "It looks like they reproduced."
"Nah," says the physicist. "There was obviously error in our initial measurement."
The mathematician looks up from his coffee. "Who cares? If another person goes in, it'll be empty."    John K Clark

Waaaaaaaahahahahahhaaaaahahahahahhaaaaaaa!  

Excellent!  All mathematics fans love mathematician jokes.  Any joke, regardless of whether or not it is actually funny, is funny if it involves math in any way.  It is like taking the absolute value of the humor: it is at worst a break even, but most likely funny.

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/a9d307a0/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 20:26:38 2014
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 13:26:38 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed
In-Reply-To: <1412108106.65746.YahooMailNeo@web161602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <1411775089.88488.YahooMailNeo@web161603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <C9F3BD64-5AFA-45EF-A3A4-F080BD0384DF@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2aZctnpibNDPPhnfJ1FHz14Aj_AjOM+=DbQN9Y78siQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <9E611077-5924-4D90-ACA8-FD1D5C2FDD6B@gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2Z4zoPPx-JOuFqZoPFFEO+uhHQajZ3Yn9H_E+iAjLHiA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1412108106.65746.YahooMailNeo@web161602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <03426BAE-4F5C-4C36-BE2C-BC166CCA5D84@gmail.com>

On Saturday, September 27, 2014 9:18 AM, John Clark <johnkclark at gmail.com> wrote:
On Sat, Sep 27, 2014 at 1:23 AM, Dan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
>> John, regarding physicalism, you might want to read this:
>> 
>> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/physicalism/
> 
> The very first words of this is "Physicalism is the thesis that
> everything is physical",

Yes, and then the rest and his book try to examine what that means.

> this was obviously written by a philosopher of mind which explains
> its uselessness. Now if it had said "all nouns are made of matter"
> I would have kept reading, if it had then said that matter is made
> of Bosons and Fermions or if it had said that matter is everything
> except for information I would have kept reading, but it didn't so
> I won't.

The problem is not with the definition though. Just as atomism was the thesis that all things are made of atoms, physicalism means all things are made ultimately of physical stuff. The onus would be on explain what physical stuff is in general as opposed at one point in history. I think there's a strong intuition of what "physical" means (across time) since which many people accept physicalism today. (Or materialism, which seems to be nothing more than the older term for the same thing. With that in mind, Ancient Greek atomism was just the physicalism of its day.)

Even your offer of "Bosons and Fermions" seems to be a variety of physicalism and would depend on what was meant by those terms. I don't see much in the way of rejecting these theses based on this -- based on the notion that calling something "physicalism" doesn't tell us much.

> I love philosophy but philosophers no longer do philosophy,
> scientists and mathematicians do.

I think people in general, scientists and mathematicians too (of the latter I think I can speak with some expertise because that's where my degree is), often do poor philosophy, just as most non-experts in any field do poorly in that field. This doesn't mean their work is to be rejected, but often when they stray beyond the confines of what they know -- and I mean they don't know philosophy; they tend to just go with their intuitions (not always wrong) and what little philosophy they've heard of (hence so many mathematicians adopting some watered down form of Platonism without understanding any of the deeper problems with any form of Platonism). This is little different than when anyone else chimes in on the latest findings in particle physics -- as if they spent time at physics conferences or reading all the journals and were able to hold their own at Fermilab or CERN, as if they were a collaborators in science rather than spectators.

This isn't to defend the whole profession of philosophy today or at any time, but I would dismiss all of it as you seem to do. (And, yeah, I'd separate philosophy from the philosophers, but in the same way I'd separate science from the scientists. No need for heroes or to follow any particular person. The problem for me is just as philosophers quite often do sloppy science, scientists often do sloppy philosophy. So, no, I don't trust the scientist, even the top level ones, to get the philosophy right here. And I do think it's important to understand and get right the latter -- that's it's neither trivial nor something one can ignore.)

>> Also, physicalism isn't trivial by way of being empty -- any more
>> than Ancient Greek atomism was similarly empty.
> 
> I think the ancient Greeks got more credit than they deserved
> for coming up with atomism, after all substances are either
> infinitely divisible or they aren't, Democritus said they
> aren't and Aristotle said they are. One said things were
> continuous and one said things were not, one of them had to
> be right although neither had a scrap of experimental evidence
> to support his guess.

They relied on observation and argument. Not bad tools to start with, and experiments are really ways of trying to control observations to test conclusions, no? But my point was that atomism is not empty even if it had only dubious support given the "science" of the time. By not being empty, I mean it wasn't merely like saying everything is made of "qwd'las'ashdhasjdahdasjdfjasd" without having any idea of what qwd'las'ashdhasjdahdasjdfjasd is. There was a fairly clear idea of what atoms were. (Yes, it wasn't completely clear, but one shouldn't expect infinite precision from the get go if ever.) Physicalism also seems to have a fairly clear idea of what the physical is -- in a way, at least, to distinguish it from its two major rivals today: dualism and idealism. Granted, it still has serious problems.

But my point in bringing up here -- and leaving aside Anders comments, which I agree with -- is it seems the strong AI hypothesis most proponents of AI hold seems to imply physicalism -- in the sense that what human intelligence relies on is how brains physically work -- what goes on in them in terms of electrical and chemical reactions and not on some notion of, say, that there's a mental realm separate from all physical moorings or that everything is really made of ideas and the physical stuff (neurons, biochemical reactions, etc.) is just our misreading an ideal realm. In other words, strong AI can succeed because there's no in principle reason why humans can't simply build non-biological brains. (Okay, there's also a multiple realizability thesis tucked in with this. This is just that intelligence supervenes on processes that can happen in a substrate other than a physical brain. This doesn't go against others' claims here that maybe AI might be better not to try to replicate everything and every function of a human intelligence.)

Regards,

Dan
My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," can be previewed at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/bbea85f0/attachment.html>

From dan_ust at yahoo.com  Tue Sep 30 20:53:04 2014
From: dan_ust at yahoo.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 13:53:04 -0700
Subject: [ExI] wordplay for a tuesday morning
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2W7R1=wnPo5HaO2zOT+2q134udJrYF8V88EuaFBbgBnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00ba01cfdcb1$493e1040$dbba30c0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEbfe9aiRTgD_R0hUHcNS80PXZ=Wzai_sdJZFNAu4p3LAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2W7R1=wnPo5HaO2zOT+2q134udJrYF8V88EuaFBbgBnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <1412110384.86790.YahooMailNeo@web161602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>

Ever since I first read it, I've liked:

"I'm not a real Modo; I'm only a Quasimodo."

How about rescuing certain words from tight couplings to others? For instance, whenever someone says "travesty," it's almost always coupled with "of justice," no? Well, use it in other words to break the couple. There's nothing wrong with "travesty of logical argument" or "travesty of a good date." Ditto for "abject" and many other words. 

Regards, 

Dan 
 My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," can be previewed at: 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2


From danust2012 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 21:12:58 2014
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:12:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] wordplay for a tuesday morning
In-Reply-To: <CAJPayv2W7R1=wnPo5HaO2zOT+2q134udJrYF8V88EuaFBbgBnQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00ba01cfdcb1$493e1040$dbba30c0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEbfe9aiRTgD_R0hUHcNS80PXZ=Wzai_sdJZFNAu4p3LAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2W7R1=wnPo5HaO2zOT+2q134udJrYF8V88EuaFBbgBnQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <C3D8B4DC-C609-433E-965B-938E31B67DF6@gmail.com>

Ever since I first read it, I've liked:

"I'm not a real Modo; I'm only a Quasimodo."

How about rescuing certain words from tight couplings to others? For instance, whenever someone says "travesty," it's almost always coupled with "of justice," no? Well, use it in other words to break the couple. There's nothing wrong with "travesty of logical argument" or "travesty of a good date." Ditto for "abject" and many other words. 

Regards, 

Dan 
 My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," can be previewed at: 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/83050055/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 21:34:07 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:34:07 -0500
Subject: [ExI] wordplay for a tuesday morning
In-Reply-To: <C3D8B4DC-C609-433E-965B-938E31B67DF6@gmail.com>
References: <00ba01cfdcb1$493e1040$dbba30c0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEbfe9aiRTgD_R0hUHcNS80PXZ=Wzai_sdJZFNAu4p3LAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2W7R1=wnPo5HaO2zOT+2q134udJrYF8V88EuaFBbgBnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <C3D8B4DC-C609-433E-965B-938E31B67DF6@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEbxU20mbR8RxY+UC8sAwasp6kWS6S=k5T3a5zCHeP+DaA@mail.gmail.com>

How about rescuing certain words from tight couplings to others? For
> instance, whenever someone says "travesty," it's almost always coupled with
> "of justice," no? Well, use it in other words to break the couple. There's
> nothing wrong with "travesty of logical argument" or "travesty of a good
> date." Ditto for "abject" and many other words.
>
> Regards,
>
> Dan
>
?Yes,  How about let's start with 'close proximity', or 'band together'
(most uses of 'together' are redundant - e.g. 'group together', 'pair
together' etc.)  bill w
?


>  My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," can be previewed at:
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/d8c813e1/attachment.html>

From stathisp at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 21:53:05 2014
From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 07:53:05 +1000
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
In-Reply-To: <DC0D0FBA-6BBA-4979-AE46-A229A249D7ED@gmail.com>
References: <1410560744.2227.YahooMailNeo@web161601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAOmnAOyakuWSQAk75Pn9-c5XoMhkJguTr1NjxT_PAR6gV3ks6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQGAnEf2Gn_s+aj0Eg=+v3bGUHFwHSgnp=TRR0P9m5aQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F68ADC7-B556-4A29-B1D9-815758A995E6@gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQ0baupN93foS+T9hsS+X4HjcKK_5vGkAHDvHnwnvxOrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <92A9EAE3-1E2E-42E1-88C9-2661FA91DA82@gmail.com>
 <CABgRZORdAtcX1njsttFB=TeXktbtNQE7fYndKsbNTG+ADc4CWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOSPr=i4uD16Pru0c4_RieuEfOpfSz7OemNxKDXY5Q1oVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <F69B172C-6564-41BB-B0E6-72CB70AD2CD5@gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQ2vWpBHFQG12xbbTRpSXy3NbGON74tAcP5C7xcQVBBxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOmnAOyxcE=1qx=4yLeeqAybTHvawaPLk0sp7eKkWYrgGh7O8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOSgiaPMM30UDMU6tD14ORjZzvK8hYSNS+N1RUirXM5JaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411676302.219.YahooMailNeo@web161604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CABgRZOR84DWXhr+++t=CC-i_bfa=meYiXxA-qRUEpad4pm+dJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQzCVKPhKb=ds-ZHuBjYOo=sXahEAytBtO=DAtkAT3H0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411690860.1023.YahooMailNeo@web161604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CABgRZOTn-h_5uKCN3E=r+VyxYdDjqMtO_2-nFo9BSD4JXbQfpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411769280.43806.YahooMailNeo@web161605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <1411775089.88488.YahooMailNeo@web161603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAH=2ypVv+OfLxbhdov70KN64PPUgrZpMRwcpskKF4WEtXx_UDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411786298.53129.YahooMailNeo@web161605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAH=2ypUddkbNZRZuXj2KrpNaWOnhRKV5XrcbiFfTzj_7Ds9TjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH=2ypXum3zB8WXQoYn8jC8Q=tPWavPNnp3qrVUZHe2Gd=fxfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <DC0D0FBA-6BBA-4979-AE46-A229A249D7ED@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAH=2ypWk6UajMQpQGrNr8jqyf5V3CUAezWjwx6Ouh6auityDsw@mail.gmail.com>

On 30 September 2014 12:39, Dan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Friday, September 26, 2014 7:41 PM, Stathis Papaioannou
> <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Possibility implies necessity if all possible worlds exist.
>
> This has interesting implications. For example, if being
>
> raised from cryinic sleep has only a 1/10^100 probability,
>
> then in a multiverse where all possibilities are realised
>
> you will definitely find yourself waking from cryinic sleep.
>
>
> There's not only the problem of whether possibility implies necessity, but
> of how an instance in one possible world is related to an instance in
> another. The relationship you're holding is it's one of identity: the object
> in one world is the same as the object in another. But that seems debatable.
> Might it not be that the two objects are related but not the same? For
> instance, I'm me in this world, but in other worlds there are Dan Usts who
> are not me. We don't share anything more than that they play the role in
> those worlds as I do in this one? Also, in many of those worlds, presumably,
> I don't exist, so whilst in some worlds I might be king, in others peasant,
> in still others there might be nothing filling the role I play (perhaps I
> was never born, vertebrates never evolved, stars never formed, the fine
> structure constant is zero, etc.). So, this is all speculative and there
> seems to me to be no strong reason to accept the view that any of us is
> identical with our counterparts, if possible worlds actually exist.
>
> Also, to add another wrinkle, even if there's a multiverse, no reason to
> believe different universes in it are related in the possible worlds fashion
> to each other in a way that helps us here. It's kind of like saying this
> instance of you is all well and fine come what may simply because there are
> other beings like you somewhere. But just as other universes aren't this
> one, the other beings like you aren't really you. Your extinction, if it
> comes about and sad as it would be, would still mean you're gone for good.
> (Of course, this is just one possible way of interpreting this, but merely
> positing a multiverse doesn't entail, IMO, all you believe it does.)

The problem is that it is impossible to meaningfully distinguish
between a copy that is really you and a copy that only has the
delusional belief that it is really you. Suppose you are informed that
you have a disease that causes you to die whenever you fall asleep at
night so that the person who wakes up in the morning is a completely
different Dan Ust who shares your memories. This has been happening
every day of your life, but you have only just found out about it.
Would this information worry you or make any difference to how you
live your life?


-- 
Stathis Papaioannou


From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 30 21:44:21 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 14:44:21 -0700
Subject: [ExI] wordplay for a tuesday morning
In-Reply-To: <C3D8B4DC-C609-433E-965B-938E31B67DF6@gmail.com>
References: <00ba01cfdcb1$493e1040$dbba30c0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEbfe9aiRTgD_R0hUHcNS80PXZ=Wzai_sdJZFNAu4p3LAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2W7R1=wnPo5HaO2zOT+2q134udJrYF8V88EuaFBbgBnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <C3D8B4DC-C609-433E-965B-938E31B67DF6@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <00c501cfdcf7$b2668610$17339230$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 2:13 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] wordplay for a tuesday morning

 

Ever since I first read it, I've liked:

>?"I'm not a real Modo; I'm only a Quasimodo."

How about rescuing certain words from tight couplings to others? For instance, whenever someone says "travesty," it's almost always coupled with "of justice," ?Dan 

 

 

{8^D

 

Dan I have fun with this, being as I am a person filled with vim.  I am hoping to someday develop vigor to go with it, but until then I am one of the oddballs who have only vim, keeping sympathetic company with vigorous but vimless people.  

 

We have found kindred spirits among the Vestal harlots.  Sure the virgins get all the attention, but there are those forlorn followers of Vesta who enjoy copulation, and I see no good reasons why they should be neglected and lonely.  We join often in picnics and outings with a group who split off from the followers of the Roman goddess in theological protest.  These are the non-Vestal virgins.  We had one convert back, but she simultaneously took up harlotry, so she kept coming to our gatherings of non-Vestal virgins, the Vestal non-virgins, the vigorous vimless and vimmy non-vigorous.

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/59f4abfb/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 22:03:28 2014
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:03:28 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <00f401cfdcb6$dd4b9370$97e2ba50$@att.net>
References: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKo=sshS5=YRxxK6ny7uu3bHVGGE5LJeP2UHvfF2F8FMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABaSBawzKXYLDD_M+1ARv2dMea-_FhOoijjAFchA14ERDR-s0A@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAKTCJydYk=PaXriwHfv6c-SF4XCdX_-eCZksaMDT6Tp+NUbBjw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00f401cfdcb6$dd4b9370$97e2ba50$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwboziUJFHzEbWvufcGBVJ4uRO7JQOenFXvYW0iM9LNHrQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:00 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> You could fly over the nudist colony and such as that.
>

Is flying over a nudist colony really all that interesting?

-Kelly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/a0efbed4/attachment.html>

From tara at taramayastales.com  Tue Sep 30 22:01:31 2014
From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 15:01:31 -0700
Subject: [ExI] wordplay for a tuesday morning
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEbxU20mbR8RxY+UC8sAwasp6kWS6S=k5T3a5zCHeP+DaA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00ba01cfdcb1$493e1040$dbba30c0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEbfe9aiRTgD_R0hUHcNS80PXZ=Wzai_sdJZFNAu4p3LAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2W7R1=wnPo5HaO2zOT+2q134udJrYF8V88EuaFBbgBnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <C3D8B4DC-C609-433E-965B-938E31B67DF6@gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbxU20mbR8RxY+UC8sAwasp6kWS6S=k5T3a5zCHeP+DaA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <24EA40C1-11D2-4C3D-9CF5-F7AB6E8AE96F@taramayastales.com>

Apparently the legal doublets in English date back to the centuries right after the Norman conquest, when, in order to be sure your listener understood you, one had to use both an English word and a French or Latin term.  

Some examples that will be familiar: "aid and abet" "over and above" "part and parcel" "terms and conditions" "free and clear" "hue and cry" and on and on? 

So obviously doublings are right and proper and we should neither cease nor desist from using them.  ;)


Tara Maya
Blog  |  Twitter  |  Facebook  |  Amazon  |  Goodreads



On Sep 30, 2014, at 2:34 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 
> 
> 
> How about rescuing certain words from tight couplings to others? For instance, whenever someone says "travesty," it's almost always coupled with "of justice," no? Well, use it in other words to break the couple. There's nothing wrong with "travesty of logical argument" or "travesty of a good date." Ditto for "abject" and many other words. 
> 
> Regards, 
> 
> Dan 
> ?Yes,  How about let's start with 'close proximity', or 'band together' (most uses of 'together' are redundant - e.g. 'group together', 'pair together' etc.)  bill w
> ? 
>  My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," can be previewed at: 
> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/2359616d/attachment.html>

From foozler83 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 22:29:28 2014
From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:29:28 -0500
Subject: [ExI] wordplay for a tuesday morning
In-Reply-To: <24EA40C1-11D2-4C3D-9CF5-F7AB6E8AE96F@taramayastales.com>
References: <00ba01cfdcb1$493e1040$dbba30c0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEbfe9aiRTgD_R0hUHcNS80PXZ=Wzai_sdJZFNAu4p3LAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2W7R1=wnPo5HaO2zOT+2q134udJrYF8V88EuaFBbgBnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <C3D8B4DC-C609-433E-965B-938E31B67DF6@gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbxU20mbR8RxY+UC8sAwasp6kWS6S=k5T3a5zCHeP+DaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <24EA40C1-11D2-4C3D-9CF5-F7AB6E8AE96F@taramayastales.com>
Message-ID: <CAO+xQEa1u1Eusdx24vHn_gi3GCJgAsEP1Nfe6Jfz1XimkU-1Xw@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Tara Maya <tara at taramayastales.com> wrote:

> Apparently the legal doublets in English date back to the centuries right
> after the Norman conquest, when, in order to be sure your listener
> understood you, one had to use both an English word and a French or Latin
> term.
>
> Some examples that will be familiar: "aid and abet" "over and above" "part
> and parcel" "terms and conditions" "free and clear" "hue and cry" and on
> and on?
>
> So obviously doublings are right and proper and we should neither cease
> nor desist from using them.  ;)
>
>
> Tara Maya
> <http://taramayastales.blogspot.com/>
>

?But some of them are just wrong!  Take 'back and forth'.  Clearly one
cannot go back without first going forth.  So either use 'to and fro' or
change the former to 'forth and back'.  bill w?


> Blog <http://taramayastales.blogspot.com/>  |  Twitter
> <https://twitter.com/taramayastales>  |  Facebook
> <http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Unfinished-Song-Epic-Fantasy/310271375658211?ref=hl>  |
>  Amazon
> <http://www.amazon.com/Tara-Maya/e/B004HAI038/ref=sr_tc_2_0?qid=1349796143&sr=8-2-ent>  |
>  Goodreads <http://www.goodreads.com/author/show/2951879.Tara_Maya>
>
>
>
> On Sep 30, 2014, at 2:34 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> How about rescuing certain words from tight couplings to others? For
>> instance, whenever someone says "travesty," it's almost always coupled with
>> "of justice," no? Well, use it in other words to break the couple. There's
>> nothing wrong with "travesty of logical argument" or "travesty of a good
>> date." Ditto for "abject" and many other words.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Dan
>>
> ?Yes,  How about let's start with 'close proximity', or 'band together'
> (most uses of 'together' are redundant - e.g. 'group together', 'pair
> together' etc.)  bill w
> ?
>
>
>>  My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," can be previewed at:
>> http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/6ab54a65/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 22:34:36 2014
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:34:36 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Lessons from Tesla?
In-Reply-To: <6432DF82-9AA4-4FDD-9DFC-5A185840FC2D@gmail.com>
References: <F2F32CAE-4911-41CC-B41A-C18F9561C3A5@gmail.com>
 <2841860371-5520@secure.ericade.net>
 <CAPy8RwZLgHiA9hDO+rUyD_SCZy-NFYpAH4LaX81_4tZL+yM47g@mail.gmail.com>
 <6511D708-647A-419B-91F5-9A088BA68FAD@gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYbd5KyYQrh_jj-5aqt4863ULNyyxGu-sj=kMbGgM++xQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6432DF82-9AA4-4FDD-9DFC-5A185840FC2D@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwbPHXbRt2ycYa_mWwYoUzNMeCmhjPrUdpeF1PivuJ5BRQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Mon, Sep 29, 2014 at 8:33 PM, Dan <danust2012 at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Monday, September 29, 2014 4:45 PM, Kelly Anderson <
> kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I'd have to see evidence for that.
>
> If you read "The Most Powerful Idea in the World - A STORY OF
>
> STEAM, INDUSTRY, AND INVENTION" by WILLIAM ROSEN, I think you
>
> may end up agreeing with his hypothesis that the British patent
>
> system was one of the most influential elements promoting the
>
> industrial revolution.
>
>
> I admit I haven't read that book... yet! :)
>

If you want evidence of my hypothesis, then you can read the book. If you
like I have an MP3 of it...


> Yes, I'm a libertarian bordering on anarchy. But one of the prime
>
> roles of government is that of protecting property from thieves.
>
>
> For me, as you probably know, a libertarian who is not an anarchist is
> inconsistent.
>

The Leviathan argues that full anarchy leads to unproductive violent
vendetta circles. I don't think we want to go back to that. Pinker makes
similar arguments. Maybe this is utilitarian, but damn it, I don't want to
have to worry about being murdered every time I leave the house.


> The only difficulty here is whether you see intellectual property
>
> as a valid form of property. And if it is, then you must concede
>
> that the government has a legitimate interest (or rather the People
>
> have a legitimate interest) in protecting that property (life,
>
> liberty and property in the original) from others.
>
>
> There are serious problems with intellectual property inside the
> libertarian ambit. But let's say there is valid intellectual property, a
> bit problem then would be that the utilitarian argument would be irrelevant
> -- just like an argument that slavery was more efficient would be
> irrelevant. And it's harder to see why intellectual property would expire
> as it does under the current -- save for a ulitarian argument about it.
> (You wouldn't, as a libertarian, I trust, say that your ownership to your
> car expired after seventeen years simply because someone else might have
> produced your car by that time.)
>

The whole purpose of the patent system is to propose a trade. Yes, you do
have infinite ownership of your intellectual property under trade secret
law. However, to promote the reproduction of productive memes, we will
allow you to have EXCLUSIVITY on your idea for a period of time if you will
SHARE the idea with others.

We do not know how to build a Stradivarius violin today because he was
protected ONLY by trade secret, and not by patent law.


> Thus software should be protected, IMHO, like authorship, by
>
> copyright law, but not by patent law.
>
>
> I'm not sure that would prevent much here. And the duration of a copyright
> is much longer.
>

The difference is that copyright protection is very narrow. You can't
outright copy my stuff. Patent law protects ANYONE doing the same thing by
SIMILAR means. It is much broader, and more open to being used for evil
ends by malicious lawyers.


> Litigation around copyrights now can be all over the place, with things
> like song writers being sued for having a melody similar to another song.
> Doesn't always succeed, of course, and I'm not saying you must either agree
> with all aspects of current intellectual property law or embrace an anti-IP
> position.
>

It's not perfect either.


> If you disagree that intellectual property is actual property
>
> in ANY case, then we have a different argument on our hands
>
>
> I see it as very problematic, especially from a libertarian point of view.
> I don't think it meshes well with libertarian theories of property. Of
> course, that said, yes, many libertarians do support intellectual property.
> But this isn't a numbers game, but whether it actually makes sense from
> that perspective.
>
> But the argument I was raising here was two-fold:
>
> 1. Government granted patents to the Wrights in the first place, so this
> wasn't like a market anarchy in patents that the government suddenly
> intervened in because of war. It was merely trading one intervention for
> another.
>
> 2. It seems like the case for patents as spurs to innovation is not a
> slamdunk one
>
> and in that case, I will side with Benjamin Franklin, who has
>
> sufficient libertarian and capitalistic cajones for my purposes.
>
>
> This is an alien way of looking at things to me. I don't seek out a figure
> from history to rally around. I try to see if an argument has merit,
> regardless of who made it. In any case, Franklin was somewhat against
> patents, wasn't he? I've heard that he didn't patent any of his inventions,
> but I'm not well read on his life.
>

He didn't patent SOME of his inventions. The lightning rod, for example,
because he was more interested in preventing house fires than making more
money. Could have had something to do with the fact that he was already one
of the richest men in America at the time.

My recollection though is that Franklin supported the idea of having a
patent system. I am not 100% sure of this, and my Internet isn't working
properly at the moment so I'll have to double check this fact at some
future time.

-Kelly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/57e2704e/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 22:14:53 2014
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:14:53 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <018801cfdcbf$438249b0$ca86dd10$@att.net>
References: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKo=sshS5=YRxxK6ny7uu3bHVGGE5LJeP2UHvfF2F8FMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c301cfdcb5$36db80a0$a49281e0$@att.net>
 <CAPGs0J-Yo0SnOoEeLFd8Ck4_CmCJat_y34c4LTmJ5-yrbqbTCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <018801cfdcbf$438249b0$ca86dd10$@att.net>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwY5GbyuyB=BYM2kw+67VJRK_bZZ47_LM0suhe=mK4NzZQ@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 9:00 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

> Ja.  Those comments were a result of Eliezer?s earliest posts on a forum
> dedicated to how much they hated Barney, a TV character from the early
> 1990s.  Eliezer?s younger brother was a big fan, which annoyed his 12 yr
> old brother.  As I recall the forum was called ?Purple Dinosaur, die die
> die!?
>

You're trying to remember the newsgroup entitled
alt.dinosaur.barney.die.die.die (you do remember news groups, right? LOL)

I will never regret anything ever posted against the evil purple one! He
must go. He is evil. If there ever is an apocalypse, I'm sure Barney will
be at the root of it.

One of the greatest real achievements of the anti Barney movement was to
coopt jihad.net a url that they maintain to this day, keeping it out of the
hands of those who might do true harm with a site with that address.

-Kelly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/17c638cf/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: DSCF1316.JPG
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 3370904 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/17c638cf/attachment.jpe>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 30 22:50:58 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 15:50:58 -0700
Subject: [ExI] wordplay for a tuesday morning
In-Reply-To: <24EA40C1-11D2-4C3D-9CF5-F7AB6E8AE96F@taramayastales.com>
References: <00ba01cfdcb1$493e1040$dbba30c0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEbfe9aiRTgD_R0hUHcNS80PXZ=Wzai_sdJZFNAu4p3LAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2W7R1=wnPo5HaO2zOT+2q134udJrYF8V88EuaFBbgBnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <C3D8B4DC-C609-433E-965B-938E31B67DF6@gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbxU20mbR8RxY+UC8sAwasp6kWS6S=k5T3a5zCHeP+DaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <24EA40C1-11D2-4C3D-9CF5-F7AB6E8AE96F@taramayastales.com>
Message-ID: <01c401cfdd01$014c7f10$03e57d30$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Tara Maya
Sent: Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:02 PM
To: ExI chat list
Subject: Re: [ExI] wordplay for a tuesday morning

 

Apparently the legal doublets in English date back to the centuries right after the Norman conquest, when, in order to be sure your listener understood you, one had to use both an English word and a French or Latin term.  

 

Some examples that will be familiar: "aid and abet" "over and above" "part and parcel" "terms and conditions" "free and clear" "hue and cry" and on and on? Tara Maya

 

 

 

OK Tara, well we can deal.  

 

Suppose there was a war and the POWs were to be given medical attention.  The doctors patched up their wounds and they all healed, and now there was nothing more to do, but the doctors are humanitarian sorts and so they decided to give all the POWs free prostate exams.  They were lending aid and discomfort to the enemy.

 

They didn?t need to do that; they went above and behind the call of duty.

 

Afterwards the doctors went to play golf.  They strove to make par; their performance was over and below.

 

One of the POW patients was suicidal, and they chose to aid, to not abet her actions.

 

One of the POWs committed a bunch of crimes in the prison camp, rape, murder of other POWs, that sort of thing, so after the war, they didn?t know if they should press criminal charges or just send him back.  That he was free was not clear.

 

There were people on both sides of the debate on what to do.  If it went one way, one group would cry.  If the other, the opposing group would hue.

 

What to do?  They decided to compromise by meeting one group?s terms while satisfying the other group?s conditions.

 

That way each got some but neither got all; the one group got part and the other, parcel.

 

 

Is this like the old days, or what?

 

{8^D

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/9894159f/attachment.html>

From kellycoinguy at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 23:17:39 2014
From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 17:17:39 -0600
Subject: [ExI] Lessons from Tesla?
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwbPHXbRt2ycYa_mWwYoUzNMeCmhjPrUdpeF1PivuJ5BRQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F2F32CAE-4911-41CC-B41A-C18F9561C3A5@gmail.com>
 <2841860371-5520@secure.ericade.net>
 <CAPy8RwZLgHiA9hDO+rUyD_SCZy-NFYpAH4LaX81_4tZL+yM47g@mail.gmail.com>
 <6511D708-647A-419B-91F5-9A088BA68FAD@gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYbd5KyYQrh_jj-5aqt4863ULNyyxGu-sj=kMbGgM++xQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6432DF82-9AA4-4FDD-9DFC-5A185840FC2D@gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbPHXbRt2ycYa_mWwYoUzNMeCmhjPrUdpeF1PivuJ5BRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <CAPy8RwYU+k_aHjXzaYPkv6xZCHy7UXj6sE4M3z5Hj0GRsppx+g@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 4:34 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com>
wrote:

>
> He didn't patent SOME of his inventions. The lightning rod, for example,
> because he was more interested in preventing house fires than making more
> money. Could have had something to do with the fact that he was already one
> of the richest men in America at the time.
>
> My recollection though is that Franklin supported the idea of having a
> patent system. I am not 100% sure of this, and my Internet isn't working
> properly at the moment so I'll have to double check this fact at some
> future time.
>

My Internet is working again, and I still can't figure out which founding
fathers were behind the idea of adopting the British Patent System to
America. Maybe it was just thought to be an obvious good thing to all of
them??? I have no idea. Nothing on the Interwebs I can find supports
anything along these lines.

-Kelly
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/bc00ad21/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 30 23:03:40 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:03:40 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwY5GbyuyB=BYM2kw+67VJRK_bZZ47_LM0suhe=mK4NzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOJFdbKo=sshS5=YRxxK6ny7uu3bHVGGE5LJeP2UHvfF2F8FMw@mail.gmail.com>
 <00c301cfdcb5$36db80a0$a49281e0$@att.net>
 <CAPGs0J-Yo0SnOoEeLFd8Ck4_CmCJat_y34c4LTmJ5-yrbqbTCw@mail.gmail.com>
 <018801cfdcbf$438249b0$ca86dd10$@att.net>
 <CAPy8RwY5GbyuyB=BYM2kw+67VJRK_bZZ47_LM0suhe=mK4NzZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <01d201cfdd02$c7988b90$56c9a2b0$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
?

 

>?You're trying to remember the newsgroup entitled alt.dinosaur.barney.die.die.die (you do remember news groups, right? LOL)?

 

 

I do!  We had some good math groups back in the old days, late 80s.  We had dial-up modems.  I heard that distinctive dial-up modem sound just yesterday.  I thought NO WAY, you gotta be KIDDING, someone still has one of those?  I looked around and found some joker had set that sound as his ringtone.  {8^D

 

That gave me an entertaining idea.  I was at the doctor?s office (yearly check-up) when I heard the dial-up modem.  The young nurse taking my vitals didn?t recognize the sound.  I couldn?t easily go outside the exam room just then, being as my backside was open to the breeze.  It occurred to me that those in their early 20s might not recognize the old familiar dial tone or the ank ank ank sound of a busy signal.  We could have some fun with that.   {8^D

 

spike

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/9ef1dc02/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Tue Sep 30 23:18:54 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 01:18:54 +0200
Subject: [ExI] AI
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEatSx4V7YaH8=zL4tE6n9O4DHQD0_tgJvZuS3YtROQosA@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3369593638-22867@secure.ericade.net>

William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> , 30/9/2014 7:27 PM:
we found a way of getting software to figure out roughly what we mean in some domains by giving them lots of examples.?

Does this mean that the computer is doing induction?? bill w
Yes. At least for some machine learning algorithms; there is a big literature on rule induction.?

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20141001/ae10496b/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Tue Sep 30 23:28:21 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 01:28:21 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed?
In-Reply-To: <CAAuFJFu50+3ocjz0eXwxeJuhyvmakytwitD4+Qv08QM7e9DKRQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3370094529-20838@secure.ericade.net>

Ohad Asor <ohadasor at gmail.com> , 30/9/2014 11:22 AM:

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 11:59 AM, Anders Sandberg <anders at aleph.se> wrote:

The problem is that if the outcome space is not well defined, the entire edifice built on the Kolmogorov axioms crashes. In most models and examples we use the outcome space is well defined: ravens have colours. But what if I show you a raven whose colour was *fish*? (or colourless green?
Sure. That's why we speak about a great amount of variables. What if the input and output of our learner will be video and audio? I don't see any obstacle implementing it.
Combinatorial explosion. When you discover spatial coherence and the existence of objects a lot of things like video become learnable that otherwise would need exponentially large training sets. So the real issue is how to get the hierarchies and structures from the data; I assume you know about the work in the Josh Tannenbaum empire?
Apparently the video game playing reinforcement agent of Deep Mind somehow figured out object constancy for the aliens in the first wave of Space Invaders and could learn to play well, but got confused by the second wave since the aliens looked different - it didn't generalize the first aliens, and had to re-learn the game completely for that stage.?

 We got the mathematical promises. We seem to got enough computational power. We got plenty of algorithms. Just two things need to be solved: how to train this brain (it's apparently more difficult than all mentioned tasks), and, who will convince investors for such a project? :)
Deep Mind found investors :-)


Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20141001/6b8b4347/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Tue Sep 30 23:32:54 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 01:32:54 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <01d201cfdd02$c7988b90$56c9a2b0$@att.net>
Message-ID: <3370642656-23198@secure.ericade.net>

spike <spike66 at att.net> , 1/10/2014 1:21 AM:

?

I do!? We had some good math groups back in the old days, late 80s.? We had dial-up modems.? I heard that distinctive dial-up modem sound just yesterday.? I thought NO WAY, you gotta be KIDDING, someone still has one of those?? I looked around and found some joker had set that sound as his ringtone.? {8^D

Ah yes... memories of connecting to BBSes using my acoustic 300bps modem.?
There were some fun handshaking going on in that sound:http://www.windytan.com/2012/11/the-sound-of-dialup-pictured.html

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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20141001/089f2a78/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 23:33:35 2014
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:33:35 -0700
Subject: [ExI] wordplay for a tuesday morning
In-Reply-To: <00c501cfdcf7$b2668610$17339230$@att.net>
References: <00ba01cfdcb1$493e1040$dbba30c0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEbfe9aiRTgD_R0hUHcNS80PXZ=Wzai_sdJZFNAu4p3LAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2W7R1=wnPo5HaO2zOT+2q134udJrYF8V88EuaFBbgBnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <C3D8B4DC-C609-433E-965B-938E31B67DF6@gmail.com>
 <00c501cfdcf7$b2668610$17339230$@att.net>
Message-ID: <7CB5C72D-D963-4C76-8411-781EB14449E0@gmail.com>

> On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 2:44 PM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:
> Dan I have fun with this, being as I am a person filled
> with vim.  I am hoping to someday develop vigor to go
> with it, but until then I am one of the oddballs who
> have only vim, keeping sympathetic company with vigorous
> but vimless people.  
> 
> We have found kindred spirits among the Vestal harlots.

> Sure the virgins get all the attention, but there are
> those forlorn followers of Vesta who enjoy copulation,
> and I see no good reasons why they should be neglected
> and lonely.  We join often in picnics and outings with
> a group who split off from the followers of the Roman
> goddess in theological protest.  These are the non-Vestal
> virgins.  We had one convert back, but she simultaneously
> took up harlotry, so she kept coming to our gatherings
> of non-Vestal virgins, the Vestal non-virgins, the
> vigorous vimless and vimmy non-vigorous.

Whew! There is a such thing as overdoing it. I prefer to plant my lexical innovations far apart to avoid them appearing all too regular, which was the problem for me in the first place. :)

Regards,

Dan
 My latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," can be previewed at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
(It's set in sunny Seattle.:)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/7e9f23bd/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 23:35:10 2014
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:35:10 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Tessons from Lesla?
In-Reply-To: <1412119445.87991.YahooMailNeo@web161602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
References: <F2F32CAE-4911-41CC-B41A-C18F9561C3A5@gmail.com>
 <2841860371-5520@secure.ericade.net>
 <CAPy8RwZLgHiA9hDO+rUyD_SCZy-NFYpAH4LaX81_4tZL+yM47g@mail.gmail.com>
 <6511D708-647A-419B-91F5-9A088BA68FAD@gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYbd5KyYQrh_jj-5aqt4863ULNyyxGu-sj=kMbGgM++xQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6432DF82-9AA4-4FDD-9DFC-5A185840FC2D@gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbPHXbRt2ycYa_mWwYoUzNMeCmhjPrUdpeF1PivuJ5BRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1412119445.87991.YahooMailNeo@web161602.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <447584C9-0B50-469F-BD66-5E5AD998C5ED@gmail.com>

> On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 3:34 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> If you want evidence of my hypothesis, then you can read the
> book. If you like I have an MP3 of it...

Thanks, but I'll look for it and add it to my list. The problem is not availability of the book as such but availability of time and attention to read it. :) (I'm not complaining, but I read about two books a month and listen to another two to four in addition to a lot of other reading and listening. If you saw my paper or electronic stack, you'd see it might take years to get to it.:)

>> For me, as you probably know, a libertarian who is not an
>> anarchist is inconsistent.
> 
> The Leviathan argues that full anarchy leads to unproductive
> violent vendetta circles. I don't think we want to go back
> to that.

That's if you accept the logic and evidence there. On the former, naturally, anarchist libertarians don't accept the logic of Hobbes argument (for a fairly extensive state). On the latter, the evidence seems very questionable with Hobbes mainly relying on his view of civil wars and such.

> Pinker makes similar arguments. Maybe this is utilitarian,
> but damn it, I don't want to have to worry about being
> murdered every time I leave the house.

You have to worry about that now -- unless you've solved the problem of being murdered completely. It's debatable whether you have to worry about less because we live under a government. It also seems to vary much by time and place and not by government. For instance, most of the US has a very low murder rate that seems to have little to do with government while some nations with less policing -- the very thing to prevent violent crime -- have even lower murder rates. Yet nations with more policing have a higher murder rate. (And, to be sure, in the US, it's a mix-up. Some heavily policed areas have very high violent crime and murder rates. In other cases, such as the Old West, there seemed to not have been a very high murder rate until government came in -- the army in particular -- which allowed people to shift from trade to raid: from trading with the Plains Indians and others to simply having them killed or pushed aside for heir lands and resources.)

By the way, I did read Pinker's book and actually read, before his book came out, some his sources, such as _War Before Civilization_. I don't think his case for government -- Pinker accepts the Hobbesian argument -- is as slam dunk as he makes it. (No surprise there!:) I actually touted the book amongst libertarians because I believe, regardless of how they react to his positions and arguments, I think it will shape the debate for the next decade or so. Seems my prediction is coming true. (Don't worry, I've predicted wrong far more than I've predicted right.:)

> The whole purpose of the patent system is to propose a trade.

That's the usual justification. You have to see how well it lives up to that and whether that is a good justification regardless. On the latter, I trust, you would accept an 

argument for chattel slavery because, well, it's for picking cotton and we do love cotton so much, so why not have slaves to pick it? :)

> Yes, you do have infinite ownership of your intellectual
> property under trade secret law. However, to promote the 
> reproduction of productive memes, we will allow you to
> have EXCLUSIVITY on your idea for a period of time if
> you will SHARE the idea with others.
> We do not know how to build a Stradivarius violin today
> because he was protected ONLY by trade secret, and not
> by patent law.

Actually, you're only proposing another form of intellectual property protection here. One might argue, on libertarian grounds, that one can have an expressed contractual relationship that prevents parties to that contract from revealing a trade secret. But that would only be binding on parties to it -- not to outsiders. Also, this would not 

apply in the case that an outside party comes up with the idea, invention, whatever independently. For example, if you invent, say, a new drug independently of some drug company and you have no fiduciary relationship to that company, there'd be, under this view, no recourse to said company saying you stole their trade secret.

Regarding the Stradivarius case, it's an open question what he might have done whether there were patents back then. Of course, the best case -- presuming we value being able to build Strads over the costs of a patent system (or the the injustice of it, if you don't believe in intellectual property) -- would be that he files all his secrets and these are known for posterity. It's definitely an argument in your favor, but one has to be careful it's not like, "Had we offered Stradivarius a trillion dollars today, he'd have shared his techniques, so it's time to grab a trillion dollars from the populace so that they few of us who enjoy Strads can have our way." It doesn't seem like a very libertarian argument, no?

>> I'm not sure that would prevent much here. And the
>> duration of a copyright is much longer.
> 
> The difference is that copyright protection is very
> narrow. You can't outright copy my stuff. Patent law
> protects ANYONE doing the same thing by SIMILAR means.
> It is much broader, and more open to being used for
> evil ends by malicious lawyers.

I think malicious or even non-malicious lawyers have tried to widen the latitude of copyright law enough too.

>> Litigation around copyrights now can be all over the
>> place, with things like song writers being sued for
>> having a melody similar to another song. Doesn't
>> always succeed, of course, and I'm not saying you
>> must either agree with all aspects of current
>> intellectual property law or embrace an anti-IP
>> position.
> 
> It's not perfect either.

Sure. Again, not asking for perfection. And I don't think you are either. Yet it seems the argument is not as strong as you make it to be -- or, to be fair, isn't persuasive to 

me.

>>> and in that case, I will side with Benjamin Franklin,
>>> who has sufficient libertarian and capitalistic
>>> cajones for my purposes.
>> 
>> This is an alien way of looking at things to me. I don't
>> seek out a figure from history to rally around. I try
>> to see if an argument has merit, regardless of who made
>> it. In any case, Franklin was somewhat against patents,
>> wasn't he? I've heard that he didn't patent any of his
>> inventions, but I'm not well read on his life.
> 
> He didn't patent SOME of his inventions. The lightning rod,
> for example, because he was more interested in preventing
> house fires than making more money. Could have had 
> something to do with the fact that he was already one
> of the richest men in America at the time.
> 
> My recollection though is that Franklin supported the
> idea of having a patent system. I am not 100% sure of
> this, and my Internet isn't working properly at the
> moment so I'll have to double check this fact at some
> future time.

Then I'm unsure why you raised him up as an example. (And I'm not even sure he could be viewed as even a proto-libertarian (relative to others of his times) from my scant readings of his political views.) I'd been under the impression Franklin wrote some well reasoned pamphlet on the issue that you were referring to. To me, this doesn't appear to be the case. He invented a lot of stuff, dabbled in many things (in some really ingenius ways), but I don't recall him presenting an earth-shattering case for intellectual property. I certainly don't think an anti-IP libertarian is going to quake in their shoes at the mention of Franklin's name. :) Not to mention, again, just because someone popular or famous or considered an intellectual predecessor holds a view doesn't mean one must accept it.

Regards,

Dan
Preview (or don't:) my latest Kindle story, "Born With Teeth," at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/52256525/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 23:36:19 2014
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:36:19 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Lessons from Tesla?
In-Reply-To: <CAPy8RwYU+k_aHjXzaYPkv6xZCHy7UXj6sE4M3z5Hj0GRsppx+g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <F2F32CAE-4911-41CC-B41A-C18F9561C3A5@gmail.com>
 <2841860371-5520@secure.ericade.net>
 <CAPy8RwZLgHiA9hDO+rUyD_SCZy-NFYpAH4LaX81_4tZL+yM47g@mail.gmail.com>
 <6511D708-647A-419B-91F5-9A088BA68FAD@gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYbd5KyYQrh_jj-5aqt4863ULNyyxGu-sj=kMbGgM++xQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <6432DF82-9AA4-4FDD-9DFC-5A185840FC2D@gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwbPHXbRt2ycYa_mWwYoUzNMeCmhjPrUdpeF1PivuJ5BRQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAPy8RwYU+k_aHjXzaYPkv6xZCHy7UXj6sE4M3z5Hj0GRsppx+g@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <158456F6-8A62-4922-8449-B963D55D9B1F@gmail.com>

> On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 4:17 PM, Kelly Anderson <kellycoinguy at gmail.com> wrote:
> My Internet is working again, and I still can't figure out
> which founding fathers were behind the idea of adopting the
> British Patent System to America. Maybe it was just thought
> to be an obvious good thing to all of them??? I have no idea.
> Nothing on the Interwebs I can find supports anything along
> these lines.

I wouldn't confuse all the Founders together and especially not confuse them with the Framers (of the U.S. Constitution = COTUS). They had differences of opinion. I don't know exactly what they were in this area, so I'm unsure, but we do know that not all the Founders or their generation supported the Constitution or every aspect of it. (There were, after all, anti-federalists and the reason they lost the battle seems to have less to do with them being a tiny minority than with them being a divided group, whereas the federalists were much more organized. But I'm not saying all, most, or many anti-federalists were against patents and copyrights. I simply don't know.) Even the Ratifiers -- to split off another group -- of the COTUS were not on board with everything. Witness the signing statements and then the political feuds before, during, and after ratification plus the gelling of the political parties afterward.

Regards,

Dan
"Born With Teeth," my latest "self-published" short story, can be previewed at:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/e1744b93/attachment.html>

From spike66 at att.net  Tue Sep 30 23:23:08 2014
From: spike66 at att.net (spike)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:23:08 -0700
Subject: [ExI] drones and ants. was: RE: Input for article on "The Extropian
	Roots of Bitcoin"
Message-ID: <021f01cfdd05$7f5733b0$7e059b10$@att.net>

 

 

From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson
Subject: Re: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"

 

On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 8:00 AM, spike <spike66 at att.net> wrote:

 

 

>>?You could fly over the nudist colony and such as that.

 

>?Is flying over a nudist colony really all that interesting?  -Kelly

 

Depends on how it is compared.  To the commons area at the local convalescent home?  Ja.  This?  No:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-wnDCJ3rgU

 

However, like many YouTube searches, I found something else unrelated that is so much more cool, I still don?t know what to think:

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-wnDCJ3rgU

 

Had I heard this described, I would be sure it was a hoax.  I have been observing ants all my life and I have never seen anything like it.  I have seen ants surround a dead bug and work together to move it, but never by forming a daisy chains.  This defies everything I thought I knew about how an ant brain works.

 

spike

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/7bbd3108/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 23:37:47 2014
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:37:47 -0700
Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Strong AI Hypothesis: logically flawed
In-Reply-To: <CAH=2ypWk6UajMQpQGrNr8jqyf5V3CUAezWjwx6Ouh6auityDsw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1410560744.2227.YahooMailNeo@web161601.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAOmnAOyakuWSQAk75Pn9-c5XoMhkJguTr1NjxT_PAR6gV3ks6w@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQGAnEf2Gn_s+aj0Eg=+v3bGUHFwHSgnp=TRR0P9m5aQw@mail.gmail.com>
 <4F68ADC7-B556-4A29-B1D9-815758A995E6@gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQ0baupN93foS+T9hsS+X4HjcKK_5vGkAHDvHnwnvxOrg@mail.gmail.com>
 <92A9EAE3-1E2E-42E1-88C9-2661FA91DA82@gmail.com>
 <CABgRZORdAtcX1njsttFB=TeXktbtNQE7fYndKsbNTG+ADc4CWw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOSPr=i4uD16Pru0c4_RieuEfOpfSz7OemNxKDXY5Q1oVg@mail.gmail.com>
 <F69B172C-6564-41BB-B0E6-72CB70AD2CD5@gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQ2vWpBHFQG12xbbTRpSXy3NbGON74tAcP5C7xcQVBBxg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAOmnAOyxcE=1qx=4yLeeqAybTHvawaPLk0sp7eKkWYrgGh7O8g@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOSgiaPMM30UDMU6tD14ORjZzvK8hYSNS+N1RUirXM5JaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411676302.219.YahooMailNeo@web161604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CABgRZOR84DWXhr+++t=CC-i_bfa=meYiXxA-qRUEpad4pm+dJw@mail.gmail.com>
 <CABgRZOQzCVKPhKb=ds-ZHuBjYOo=sXahEAytBtO=DAtkAT3H0Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411690860.1023.YahooMailNeo@web161604.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CABgRZOTn-h_5uKCN3E=r+VyxYdDjqMtO_2-nFo9BSD4JXbQfpw@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411769280.43806.YahooMailNeo@web161605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <1411775089.88488.YahooMailNeo@web161603.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAH=2ypVv+OfLxbhdov70KN64PPUgrZpMRwcpskKF4WEtXx_UDQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <1411786298.53129.YahooMailNeo@web161605.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
 <CAH=2ypUddkbNZRZuXj2KrpNaWOnhRKV5XrcbiFfTzj_7Ds9TjQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAH=2ypXum3zB8WXQoYn8jC8Q=tPWavPNnp3qrVUZHe2Gd=fxfA@mail.gmail.com>
 <DC0D0FBA-6BBA-4979-AE46-A229A249D7ED@gmail.com>
 <CAH=2ypWk6UajMQpQGrNr8jqyf5V3CUAezWjwx6Ouh6auityDsw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <F1EB0630-9916-4D89-8056-056A69398150@gmail.com>

> On Tuesday, September 30, 2014 2:53 PM, Stathis Papaioannou <stathisp at gmail.com> wrote:
> The problem is that it is impossible to meaningfully
> distinguish between a copy that is really you and a
> copy that only has the delusional belief that it is
> really you.

This is not necessarily the case, though, in possible worlds as real. The you in another possible world is distinguishable from you in this world because that you is in another possible world and not this one. Whether there's some sense that you're both part of the same overall you is the point of contention, but other possible worlds "you" are not deluded copies of you nor you of them. And they'd also have slightly (in some cases infinitesimally slightly) different relations to their worlds. The you that ends, say, being the prime minister of France or of not believing in other possible worlds wouldn't confuse himself with the you I'm discussing this with, would he?

> Suppose you are informed that you have a disease that
> causes you to die whenever you fall asleep at night so
> that the person who wakes up in the morning is a
> completely different Dan Ust who shares your memories.
> This has been happening every day of your life, but you
> have only just found out about it. Would this information
> worry you or make any difference to how you live your life?

The issue though is not whether you can cook up cases where worrying would seem to offer no consolation -- and I think many people would worry every single night though would merely get used to it just as they'd get used to being blinded or having their face disfigured, but that's not an argument for blinding or disfiguring people, is it? -- is not the same as proving the you who happens to live in another universe is really picking up where you left off or that your extinction here should be of no concern to you. All of this is merely postulating ways to get around a very real concern.

Also, these are epistemic issues that don't really clear up what is the case. You might not know (or now know, considering that the problem might be tackled in the future) how to resolve these issues, but lacking a resolution doesn't erase the problem. Nor does merely adopting a resolution that seems uber-optimistic: no one really dies or needs to worry.

This also doesn't really resolve the issue of whether strong AI is possible. I doubt it, but one conceive of it being the case that they are necessarily ruled out (in our world, or, if you please, in all possible worlds). Thus, fantasizing it might be different elsewhere doesn't gaurantee just how it's different -- regardless of our ability to know.

(Finally, the usual treatment of modality is really to figure out just what is possible -- whether one accepts possible worlds are real -- and what's entailed by this. Roderick Long, in a similar discussion, clarified the different relations between the possible in various domains and believes some of the problem here is how some confuse metaphysical entailment with epistemic entailment, physical entailment, and so forth. I think it's worth considering.)

Regards, 

Dan 
Preview my latest Kindle book, "Born With Teeth," at: 
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/8fe8c0dd/attachment.html>

From anders at aleph.se  Tue Sep 30 23:39:43 2014
From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg)
Date: Wed, 1 Oct 2014 01:39:43 +0200
Subject: [ExI] Input for article on "The Extropian Roots of Bitcoin"
In-Reply-To: <CAKTCJyfx3R6XyjmATRn9Nx4GcU7Nmj-JFTiBKRXKanc7GHx+GQ@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <3370787082-22867@secure.ericade.net>

I don't remember much of the discussions, but they were often pretty extensive. Both anarchocapitalist ideas and how to implement PPL using smart contracts (old issues of Extropy might have a few illuminating articles), technical discussions about protocols and of course hardware worries about rod logic computers cracking codes. I think the key insight was that crypto could act as a primitive for building awesome things.
I certainly learned a fair bit about crypto from it, ending up getting Schneiers'?Applied Cryptography. Some ideas from those discussions show up in my early RPG writing like?http://www.aleph.se/Nada/InfoWar/economics.html

Anders Sandberg, Future of Humanity Institute Philosophy Faculty of Oxford University
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20141001/0d4d1de6/attachment.html>

From danust2012 at gmail.com  Tue Sep 30 23:45:24 2014
From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan)
Date: Tue, 30 Sep 2014 16:45:24 -0700
Subject: [ExI] wordplay for a tuesday morning
In-Reply-To: <CAO+xQEa1u1Eusdx24vHn_gi3GCJgAsEP1Nfe6Jfz1XimkU-1Xw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <00ba01cfdcb1$493e1040$dbba30c0$@att.net>
 <CAO+xQEbfe9aiRTgD_R0hUHcNS80PXZ=Wzai_sdJZFNAu4p3LAg@mail.gmail.com>
 <CAJPayv2W7R1=wnPo5HaO2zOT+2q134udJrYF8V88EuaFBbgBnQ@mail.gmail.com>
 <C3D8B4DC-C609-433E-965B-938E31B67DF6@gmail.com>
 <CAO+xQEbxU20mbR8RxY+UC8sAwasp6kWS6S=k5T3a5zCHeP+DaA@mail.gmail.com>
 <24EA40C1-11D2-4C3D-9CF5-F7AB6E8AE96F@taramayastales.com>
 <CAO+xQEa1u1Eusdx24vHn_gi3GCJgAsEP1Nfe6Jfz1XimkU-1Xw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <D61575D5-8845-4626-9DDD-A816473FCF02@gmail.com>

I think there's the rhythm of the language involved. "Black and white," for example, just sounds right as opposed to "white and black." Ditto for "black and blue" versus "blue and black," though there's violation of temporal, logical, or other order as in "head over heels" (doesn't violate but why is that strange?) or "have your cake and eat it" (which I read started as "eat your cake and have it").

I think it's fun to play with these regularities. I said nothing about abandoning them. 

Regards,

Dan
My latest Kindle book: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00N72FBA2

> On Sep 30, 2014, at 3:29 PM, William Flynn Wallace <foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>> On Tue, Sep 30, 2014 at 5:01 PM, Tara Maya <tara at taramayastales.com> wrote:
>> Apparently the legal doublets in English date back to the centuries right after the Norman conquest, when, in order to be sure your listener understood you, one had to use both an English word and a French or Latin term.  
>> 
>> Some examples that will be familiar: "aid and abet" "over and above" "part and parcel" "terms and conditions" "free and clear" "hue and cry" and on and on? 
>> 
>> So obviously doublings are right and proper and we should neither cease nor desist from using them.  ;)
>> 
>> 
>> Tara Maya
> 
> ?But some of them are just wrong!  Take 'back and forth'.  Clearly one cannot go back without first going forth.  So either use 'to and fro' or change the former to 'forth and back'.  bill w? 
>> 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20140930/64dc49f0/attachment.html>