From spike66 at att.net Wed Jun 1 12:42:19 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 05:42:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] education again Message-ID: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> Do indulge my urge to hammer this further please. OK so my previous what-if question had to do with the new opportunities presented by the arrival in the past few years of permanent-record adaptive online education, with Khan Academy being one good example. We know the traditional education system involves a maturing process. We know it involves a number of mechanisms that are put in place (for good reasons) to keep the students marching in lock-step, even though their ability to learn is smeared out over perhaps an order of magnitude. We know that traditional education mostly squanders the high-end academic talent, offering little help in general but plenty of road-blocks. With our ability to envision a means of allowing students to use their time and talent far more efficiently, we can see that some of the top-end students will master everything in the traditional primary and secondary curriculum by about age 12 to 14. OK then what? There are good reasons for keeping them off of college campuses. They introduce so many headaches an administrator would rather not deal with. They are often not emotionally mature enough for that environment, they would introduce all kinds of risk, mixing with adults. You know they would lie about their age to get laid; then you have all the risk of statutory rape. There are so many related risks involved in mixing adults and minors, particularly when those minors are smart and attractive. To me it is becoming clearer always that we now can get plenty of students to a strong mastery of the primary and secondary curriculum by age 16 and some of them by age 12. I just haven't figured out what to do next. I am so repulsed by the notion of falling back on the solution used on me and plenty of us here: figure out ways to waste their time until they come of age. There is so much squandered potential, it is tragic. It is making me crazy knowing that I don't know how to harness the potential either. Suggestions please? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jun 1 13:49:18 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 08:49:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] education again In-Reply-To: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> References: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> Message-ID: Suggestions please? No kid is going to be through with school at 12 or 14 since he will not have experienced all the classes that are taught, such as 11th grade history, or 12th grade finance. But if he has passed all the requirements for graduation, why not let him take college courses online? He could be allowed to continue to participate in the clubs he was in at school, or sports, so he could get the socializing he wants and needs. Why not call a local college and ask them how they deal with a prodigy who is intellectually ready for college at 14? bill w and maybe more later On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:42 AM, spike wrote: > > > > > > > Do indulge my urge to hammer this further please. > > > > OK so my previous what-if question had to do with the new opportunities > presented by the arrival in the past few years of permanent-record adaptive > online education, with Khan Academy being one good example. > > > > We know the traditional education system involves a maturing process. We > know it involves a number of mechanisms that are put in place (for good > reasons) to keep the students marching in lock-step, even though their > ability to learn is smeared out over perhaps an order of magnitude. We > know that traditional education mostly squanders the high-end academic > talent, offering little help in general but plenty of road-blocks. > > > > With our ability to envision a means of allowing students to use their > time and talent far more efficiently, we can see that some of the top-end > students will master everything in the traditional primary and secondary > curriculum by about age 12 to 14. OK then what? > > > > There are good reasons for keeping them off of college campuses. They > introduce so many headaches an administrator would rather not deal with. > They are often not emotionally mature enough for that environment, they > would introduce all kinds of risk, mixing with adults. You know they would > lie about their age to get laid; then you have all the risk of statutory > rape. There are so many related risks involved in mixing adults and > minors, particularly when those minors are smart and attractive. > > > > To me it is becoming clearer always that we now can get plenty of students > to a strong mastery of the primary and secondary curriculum by age 16 and > some of them by age 12. I just haven?t figured out what to do next. I am > so repulsed by the notion of falling back on the solution used on me and > plenty of us here: figure out ways to waste their time until they come of > age. There is so much squandered potential, it is tragic. It is making me > crazy knowing that I don?t know how to harness the potential either. > > > > Suggestions please? > > > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Jun 1 14:22:27 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 07:22:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] education again In-Reply-To: References: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> Message-ID: <004401d1bc11$06c11c80$14435580$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 6:49 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] education again Suggestions please? >?No kid is going to be through with school at 12 or 14 since he will not have experienced all the classes that are taught, such as 11th grade history, or 12th grade finance? Why those two in particular BillW? Both look to me like good examples of classes which can be mastered at an earlier age than 16. Finance is not a requirement, but it is easier than plenty of the math courses. Set up spreadsheets for expenses, create exponential growth models and so forth. Both those examples seem nearly ideal candidates for being broken down into 15 minute lectures common in online curricula. >?But if he has passed all the requirements for graduation, why not let him take college courses online? He could be allowed to continue to participate in the clubs he was in at school, or sports, so he could get the socializing he wants and needs? Ja that is a strategy, but really where I am going with this is not the individual prodigy here and there (which we have always had (and always dealt with in a clumsy ad hoc manner.)) Rather what happens when we get 10% of the 8th graders who can demonstrate mastery of the usual disciplines the mainstream is still struggling with in the upper grades? My notion is that if every student is allowed to advance at his or her own pace, that top 10% by end of 8th grade is realistic. My claim is that about 10% of the class is held back intentionally with the others, or left without help, or actively distracted with useless tasks to waste their time. Harm is done. >?Why not call a local college and ask them how they deal with a prodigy who is intellectually ready for college at 14? bill w and maybe more later They can do some accommodations now, but I can see problems with trying to shoehorn in dozens of minors into a college environment. We need some kind of basic rethinking, perhaps some kind of breakaway effort or Kickstarter or something. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jun 1 15:09:40 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 10:09:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] education again In-Reply-To: <004401d1bc11$06c11c80$14435580$@att.net> References: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> <004401d1bc11$06c11c80$14435580$@att.net> Message-ID: Why those two in particular BillW? Both look to me like good examples of classes which can be mastered at an earlier age than 16. spike Because they are not offered to younger students. Are you suggesting that a fast track student could enroll in any class at all? 8th grade, eh? Just where would they have the time to take 12 years of classes in 8 years? Sure, they may be skipping a few intermediate math classes...... 10% is a lot - a real lot of people. I don't see why colleges could not offer classes just for this group, thus negating any ill effects of being put in classes with people 7 or 8 years older. I see this as more doable than rearranging classes so that the 10% could graduate before 9th grade. bill w On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:22 AM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 01, 2016 6:49 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] education again > > > > Suggestions please? > > > > >?No kid is going to be through with school at 12 or 14 since he will not > have experienced all the classes that are taught, such as 11th grade > history, or 12th grade finance? > > > > Why those two in particular BillW? Both look to me like good examples of > classes which can be mastered at an earlier age than 16. Finance is not a > requirement, but it is easier than plenty of the math courses. Set up > spreadsheets for expenses, create exponential growth models and so forth. > Both those examples seem nearly ideal candidates for being broken down into > 15 minute lectures common in online curricula. > > > > > > >?But if he has passed all the requirements for graduation, why not let > him take college courses online? He could be allowed to continue to > participate in the clubs he was in at school, or sports, so he could get > the socializing he wants and needs? > > > > Ja that is a strategy, but really where I am going with this is not the > individual prodigy here and there (which we have always had (and always > dealt with in a clumsy ad hoc manner.)) Rather what happens when we get > 10% of the 8th graders who can demonstrate mastery of the usual > disciplines the mainstream is still struggling with in the upper grades? > My notion is that if every student is allowed to advance at his or her own > pace, that top 10% by end of 8th grade is realistic. My claim is that > about 10% of the class is held back intentionally with the others, or left > without help, or actively distracted with useless tasks to waste their > time. Harm is done. > > > > >?Why not call a local college and ask them how they deal with a prodigy > who is intellectually ready for college at 14? bill w and maybe more later > > > > > > They can do some accommodations now, but I can see problems with trying to > shoehorn in dozens of minors into a college environment. We need some kind > of basic rethinking, perhaps some kind of breakaway effort or Kickstarter > 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: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Jun 1 17:39:22 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 10:39:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Censorship In-Reply-To: References: <17F982E8-3A8F-40F1-98BA-47C08E9E87C6@gmail.com> <57495715.20008@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Jun 1, 2016 1:49 AM, "Anders" wrote: > On 2016-05-31 20:36, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> On May 28, 2016 1:31 AM, "Anders Sandberg" wrote: >> > if it is not possible to have a debate about whether they should be changed, then society is not open. >> >> Does this include where the opponents of change simply refuse to engage in honest debate, making up facts to support their position? That is something that said opponents can not usually be forced to change or concede. > > Sometimes. But if the proponents of change have a compelling narrative that can attract people, then the lack of honest debate from one side can become counterproductive for them in the end. But that is still a one sided debate, and thus not open, correct? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Jun 1 17:52:46 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 10:52:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] education again In-Reply-To: References: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> <004401d1bc11$06c11c80$14435580$@att.net> Message-ID: <006201d1bc2e$68292720$387b7560$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] education again >>?Why those two in particular BillW? Both look to me like good examples of classes which can be mastered at an earlier age than 16. spike >?Because they are not offered to younger students? Ja, but why are they not offered to younger students? This gets right to the heart of the question: if we figure out a way to allow end-runs around the kinds of barriers which are STILL being thrown at the eagles, they can take off and soar. >?Are you suggesting that a fast track student could enroll in any class at all? Ja, if they have online resources and can self-direct, then demonstrate mastery in any topic, I see no logical justification for blocking the runway. >?8th grade, eh? Just where would they have the time to take 12 years of classes in 8 years? Sure, they may be skipping a few intermediate math classes...... In a specific area, I am seeing what looks to me like a student taking 12 years of classes by the end of 4th grade, while skipping nothing. It looks to me like a more advanced, complete and thorough treatment of the subjects than what I was offered so tragically many decades ago through high school. Granted this is focused on mathematics, but math is the key to so many other disciplines, such as the one you specified, finance. Kids who know the hell out of their exponential growth modeling, their risk matrix algebra and so forth would be great at finance. They could do tricks with it which are not in the book. They could set up spreadsheets and do for-fun stock investing, and while they do that, why does it need to be for fun? Some kids have their own money to invest long before elementary school is over, so why not dip a few hundred in there, penny stocks, high risk stuff, perhaps a share or two of blue chips? Why not have them create a script-enabled spreadsheet which can access a database, let them figure out which of their stocks are winners and which are losers? It can be done as a game with no money (but with students competing with each other (kids love to compete (it?s human nature))) or with real funds. Hell they might be better at it than I am. I suck at money. >?10% is a lot - a real lot of people. I don't see why colleges could not offer classes just for this group, thus negating any ill effects of being put in classes with people 7 or 8 years older. I see this as more doable than rearranging classes so that the 10% could graduate before 9th grade. bill w Ja. I predict that what once was considered 2.5 sigma performance will soon be about 1.5 sigma. That change will happen in a space of 20 years or less. This all has my wheels spinning. I have some ideas. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Jun 1 18:25:13 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 14:25:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?How_Technology_Hijacks_People=E2=80=99s_Minds?= In-Reply-To: References: <004201d1bab7$5c5f0e50$151d2af0$@att.net> <008801d1bade$7c53ae60$74fb0b20$@att.net> <008601d1bb62$148318a0$3d8949e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 2:21 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > We see a rebounding of subliminal ads, in experiments, that do work. And > what about product placement? You may notice the Coke bottle and you may > not but your unconscious saw it in all likelihood. > ### But I don't drink Coke. A long time ago I stopped drinking regular Coke because of the sugar. Then I found out about the phosphoric acid so I stopped drinking diet Coke as well and switched to diet Sprite-like drinks. Then I read enough about the impact of non-nutritious sweeteners on the gut flora to have doubts about their innocuousness. I hate the taste of water or unsweetened tea, so I mix carbonated mineral water with a bit of diet Sprite-like. Advertising, subliminal or not, doesn't seem to have any impact on what I drink or eat. Most of what I eat is not advertised at all. I don't own or watch TV, I don't read newspapers, I don't read websites that block Adblocker. I make enough money to be a prime target of advertisers, yet I remain so tantalizingly out of their reach. Suckers. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Jun 1 18:31:55 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 14:31:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?How_Technology_Hijacks_People=E2=80=99s_Minds?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Anders wrote: > > > I met a colleague writing a book on how to train your husband, and it was > all based on behaviorist theories. She remarked that she couldn't name them > as behaviorism (mostly because readers did not want any fancy terminology), > but it was straight out of psych 101. > ### I read a book on how to train women. It worked! But, as an only modestly evil person, I couldn't keep serially breaking their hearts. I am back to being almost a nice guy. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jun 1 18:47:17 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 13:47:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?How_Technology_Hijacks_People=E2=80=99s_Minds?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ### But I don't drink Coke. A long time ago I stopped drinking regular Coke because of the sugar. Then I found out about the phosphoric acid so I stopped drinking diet Coke as well and switched to diet Sprite-like drinks. Then I read enough about the impact of non-nutritious sweeteners on the gut flora to have doubts about their innocuousness. I hate the taste of water or unsweetened tea, so I mix carbonated mineral water with a bit of diet Sprite-like. rafal Try this product, which I use in iced tea. You have to buy a set of tiny spoons to use with it, as it doesn't have the filler sugar that Splenda does. I am very satisfied with the taste. That filler sugar is not good stuff, I read. Extremely cheap. 50 grams is years of supply. https://smile.amazon.com/gp/product/B00CCXMBF0/ref=oh_aui_search_detailpage?ie=UTF8&psc=1 bill w On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > On Tue, May 31, 2016 at 4:16 PM, Anders wrote: >> >> >> I met a colleague writing a book on how to train your husband, and it was >> all based on behaviorist theories. She remarked that she couldn't name them >> as behaviorism (mostly because readers did not want any fancy terminology), >> but it was straight out of psych 101. >> > > ### I read a book on how to train women. > > It worked! > > But, as an only modestly evil person, I couldn't keep serially breaking > their hearts. I am back to being almost a nice guy. > > Rafa? > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Jun 1 19:18:14 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 15:18:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?How_Technology_Hijacks_People=E2=80=99s_Minds?= In-Reply-To: References: <004201d1bab7$5c5f0e50$151d2af0$@att.net> <008801d1bade$7c53ae60$74fb0b20$@att.net> <008601d1bb62$148318a0$3d8949e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ### But I don't drink Coke. A long time ago I stopped drinking regular > Coke because of the sugar. Then I found out about the phosphoric acid so I > stopped drinking diet Coke as well and switched to diet Sprite-like drinks. > Then I read enough about the impact of non-nutritious sweeteners on the gut > flora to have doubts about their innocuousness. I hate the taste of water > or unsweetened tea, so I mix carbonated mineral water with a bit of diet > Sprite-like. I've gotten used to water and unsweetened tea (when I'm not drinking beer, wine, or whiskey), but for a while I was adding True Lemon, True Lime, or True Orange and a little stevia, which seems not to have the bad gut or insulin effects that some non-caloric sweeteners have. The True products are basically powered citrus juices. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 1 20:19:06 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 16:19:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump Message-ID: Stephen Hawkings said "Donald Trump is a demagogue, who seems to appeal to the lowest common denominator". JK Rowling ? ? said of Trump "Voldemort was nowhere near as bad" ?.? ?Horror writer ? Stephen King ?said Donald Trump ? scares him and said "Even if he ? was able to govern without blowing up the world, could we look at a guy who resembles a cable game show host for four years?? ?But not everybody hates Trump, North Korea loves him, in today's ?o fficial state-run newspaper DPRK ?North Korea praised ? Trump as a ?wise politician? and ?far-sighted candidate? ? and said? " The president that U.S. citizens must vote for is not that dull Hillary but Trump ?". ? As for me I rather like the idea that the person who has the keys to a Trident Nuclear Submarine is a bit dull, I don't want excitement coming from that direction. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Jun 1 20:23:20 2016 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 16:23:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] education again In-Reply-To: <004401d1bc11$06c11c80$14435580$@att.net> References: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> <004401d1bc11$06c11c80$14435580$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 10:22 AM, spike wrote: > They can do some accommodations now, but I can see problems with trying to > shoehorn in dozens of minors into a college environment. We need some kind > of basic rethinking, perhaps some kind of breakaway effort or Kickstarter or > something. I wonder if your 14 year old can mentor one of the similarly gifted 10 year olds. It would help with the shortage of teachers for that kind of student. It will also help with some of the social interaction that the stereotypically bookish tend to miss (and are then so unprepared for college partying). I imagine this should be viewed not as a chore or annoying price to be paid, but as an opportunity to build peer-teams. The Unknown can be daunting but also exciting. If you're going to venture where none have gone before, you first have to cross a lot of the known world before you can expand the boundaries. It's worthwhile to gather like-minded people to extend your intellectual supply lines. How do you do that? >From personal experience, many of my (our?) smart friends really don't know. We haven't had much skills training in managing people, including circles of friends. I think that needs to be on the table for your next-generation education proposal. From steinberg.will at gmail.com Wed Jun 1 20:31:03 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 16:31:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Do presidents have checks on their ability to launch nukes? I honestly don't know and I'm wondering who here knows; I'm sure somebody here does. Can the chiefs of staff or such veto a nuclear strike? I feel like that must be true, but then they could be on Trump's side. I honestly think that there WILL be nuclear war if Trump wins. I'm currently reading Dr. Bloodmoney by Philip K Dick and its imagery of a post-global-nuclear-war America (specifically the Bay Area) is chilling and almost prophetic. If Trump is elected, I would not want to live in or near a city. He's the fucking devil and will bring potentially irreversible chaos and destruction to the Earth. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jun 1 22:18:14 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:18:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] education again In-Reply-To: References: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> <004401d1bc11$06c11c80$14435580$@att.net> Message-ID: >From personal experience, many of my (our?) smart friends really don't know. We haven't had much skills training in managing people, including circles of friends. mike Here's an opportunity that may take some research to find out if it's already happening: a significant percentage of math/science smart kids have autism, Asperger's or the syndrome. All are similar in that social skills tend to be fairly low level, since that is one of the diagnostic criteria. Why not help them learn those skills by being mentors to others? At first a special ed teacher may have to be there to get them started and to learn how to interact in a mentoring environment. Then after they have demonstrated the skills necessary the teacher can move on to another prospective mentor. And then the now adept mentor can fill in for the special ed teacher and mentor other mentors. I have no background in special ed (even though I taught Mental Retardation, now a taboo term), but this seems like such a good idea that it may have already be put into practice. Good idea Mike bill w On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 3:23 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 10:22 AM, spike wrote: > > They can do some accommodations now, but I can see problems with trying > to > > shoehorn in dozens of minors into a college environment. We need some > kind > > of basic rethinking, perhaps some kind of breakaway effort or > Kickstarter or > > something. > > I wonder if your 14 year old can mentor one of the similarly gifted 10 > year olds. > > It would help with the shortage of teachers for that kind of student. > It will also help with some of the social interaction that the > stereotypically bookish tend to miss (and are then so unprepared for > college partying). > > I imagine this should be viewed not as a chore or annoying price to be > paid, but as an opportunity to build peer-teams. > > The Unknown can be daunting but also exciting. If you're going to > venture where none have gone before, you first have to cross a lot of > the known world before you can expand the boundaries. It's worthwhile > to gather like-minded people to extend your intellectual supply lines. > How do you do that? > > From personal experience, many of my (our?) smart friends really don't > know. We haven't had much skills training in managing people, > including circles of friends. > > I think that needs to be on the table for your next-generation > education proposal. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jun 1 22:28:47 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 17:28:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?How_Technology_Hijacks_People=E2=80=99s_Minds?= In-Reply-To: References: <004201d1bab7$5c5f0e50$151d2af0$@att.net> <008801d1bade$7c53ae60$74fb0b20$@att.net> <008601d1bb62$148318a0$3d8949e0$@att.net> Message-ID: see below On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:18 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 2:25 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki < > rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > >> ### But I don't drink Coke. A long time ago I stopped drinking regular >> Coke because of the sugar. Then I found out about the phosphoric acid so I >> stopped drinking diet Coke as well and switched to diet Sprite-like drinks. >> Then I read enough about the impact of non-nutritious sweeteners on the gut >> flora to have doubts about their innocuousness. I hate the taste of water >> or unsweetened tea, so I mix carbonated mineral water with a bit of diet >> Sprite-like. > > > I've gotten used to water and unsweetened tea (when I'm not drinking beer, > wine, or whiskey), but for a while I was adding True Lemon, True Lime, or > True Orange and a little stevia, which seems not to have the bad gut or > insulin effects that some non-caloric sweeteners have. The True products > are basically powered citrus juices. > > -Dave > ?I did a bit of Googling and it seems that any problems with Splenda stem > from the maltodextrin which forms the bulk of the product. Actually > sucralose is mostly not digested. So it could be that any problems with > Splenda stem from the maltodextrin rather than sucralose. One report said > the maltodextrin made gut flora 'sticky'. So I'd stick to straight > sucralose - far cheaper anyway. I bought mine on eBay. > ? http://giving.clevelandclinic.org/articles/researcher-links-digestive-problems-food-additive bill w? > ? > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 1 23:06:40 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 19:06:40 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 Will Steinberg wrote: > ?> ? > Do presidents have checks on their ability to launch nukes? > > ?There is a safeguard of sorts but it's not very robust because at the end of the day there is only one Commander In Chef. ?If the President is nuts we're in deep shit. ? The president carries on his person 24/7 a card about the size of a credit card with the launch code on it and a opaque sticker over it. ?I? t's nickname ?d? "the biscuit" ? and he receives a new card every day. To use it the president must removes the opaque sticker and ? he? will see ?a list of ? several codes, most of the codes are phony so the president must memorize where on the list the correct code is located. Nobody on Earth knows both what is on the the daily biscuit and where on the biscuit the correct code is until the president takes off that opaque sticker over the card, then one person knows. ?The ? (weak) ? safeguard is that the ? secretary of Defense ? must agree ?,? but if he doesn't ?? the president can fire him and then The Deputy Secretary of Defense ? must agree, and if he does't the president can fire him too and then just keep going down the line of top defense department officials until he finds somebody who does agree; given the fact the president originally appointed all these people I don't imagine it would take long before he finds somebody who agrees with him. ? ?After that ?the president must then contact the National Military Command Center ?over a secure channel ? and ?read off the launch code ? from the correct place on the biscuit. And after that the world ends. Now imagine that a super thin skinned ill tempered illogical ignorant megalomaniac had the biscuit in his pocket and knew were on the biscuit the genuine launch code was, and imagine that this nightmare went on for 4 years. Now maybe you can understand why Stephen King said the thought of Donald Trump being president was scarier than anything he ever wrote. I think Trump is the sort of person who would rather die than loose face, or to be more specific would rather destroy the world than be embarrassed. Someday something like the Cuban Missile Crises could happen again, and on that day if the president is more like Trump than like Kennedy we're all dead. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Jun 1 23:13:09 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 16:13:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00fb01d1bc5b$29f34670$7dd9d350$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Will Steinberg Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 1:31 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump >?Do presidents have checks on their ability to launch nukes? I honestly don't know and I'm wondering who here knows; I'm sure somebody here does. Can the chiefs of staff or such veto a nuclear strike? I feel like that must be true, but then they could be on Trump's side. >?I honestly think that there WILL be nuclear war if Trump wins. I'm currently reading Dr. Bloodmoney by Philip K Dick and its imagery of a post-global-nuclear-war America (specifically the Bay Area) is chilling and almost prophetic. If Trump is elected, I would not want to live in or near a city. >?He's the fucking devil and will bring potentially irreversible chaos and destruction to the Earth. A US president can unilaterally launch nukes. There is no veto power. Johnson and Weld in 2016. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 01:13:22 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 21:13:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:06 PM, John Clark wrote: > ...most of the codes are phony so the president must memorize where on > the list the correct code is located. > Well maybe we are a bit safer then; Trump could be stupid enough to memorize it incorrectly. ;) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Jun 2 01:23:56 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 18:23:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Will Steinberg Subject: Re: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:06 PM, John Clark > wrote: ...most of the codes are phony so the president must memorize where on the list the correct code is located. >?Well maybe we are a bit safer then; Trump could be stupid enough to memorize it incorrectly. ;) I would estimate the likelihood of Trump using a nuke at about 10%, Clinton about 12%, Johnson about 1%, probably less. At least two of these tell me it is time to look for an alternative place to live. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 02:02:27 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 22:02:27 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:23 PM, spike wrote: > ?>? > I would estimate the likelihood of Trump using a nuke at about 10%, > Clinton about 12% Spike, is having an insecure Email server really crazier ? than wanting to torture for its own sake and ? not to ? just to ? get information? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 02:11:03 2016 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 12:11:03 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> Message-ID: With a 10% chance that a US president would use nuclear weapons in a 4 year term, that would mean about an 84% chance of use in the past 70 years. On 2 June 2016 at 11:23, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *Will Steinberg > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump > > > > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 7:06 PM, John Clark wrote: > > ...most of the codes are phony so the president must memorize where on > the list the correct code is located. > > > > >?Well maybe we are a bit safer then; Trump could be stupid enough to > memorize it incorrectly. ;) > > > > > > > > I would estimate the likelihood of Trump using a nuke at about 10%, > Clinton about 12%, Johnson about 1%, probably less. At least two of these > tell me it is time to look for an alternative place to live. > > > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From spike66 at att.net Thu Jun 2 02:10:24 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 19:10:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> Message-ID: <01f501d1bc73$ecfeaf70$c6fc0e50$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 7:02 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 9:23 PM, spike > wrote: ?>? I would estimate the likelihood of Trump using a nuke at about 10%, Clinton about 12% >?Spike, is having an insecure Email server really crazier ? than wanting to torture for its own sake and ? not to just to get information? John K Clark John there is no need to compare these two. Both are rotten to the core. We cannot believe what they say, cannot trust what they do. Neither can be trusted with power. Both have demonstrated themselves untrustworthy, and I couldn?t vote for either. I am hopeful that this feeling will become strong enough that the news agencies will realize the absurdity of their position that only the Republicans and Democrats can ever win. If they make all the televised debates three way, then Johnson has a chance. If they allow the debates to be three-way, the voters will immediately see the relative sanity of his positions. They will overlook the pot smoking probably (I sure will) and realize this is a true fiscal conservative social liberal, something we have needed for a long time. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 02:29:45 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 22:29:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ?> ? > With a 10% chance that a US president would use nuclear weapons in a 4 > year term, that would mean about an 84% chance of use in the past 70 years. > ?But over the last 70 years we've never had a president like Donald Trump, if we had one in 1962 we wouldn't be having this conversation right now. And if Trump had been president in 2001 I think he would have dropped a H-bomb on September 12, I'm not sure where he'd drop it but he'd find someplace, Mexico City maybe. ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Jun 2 02:41:55 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 19:41:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> Message-ID: <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 7:11 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump With a 10% chance that a US president would use nuclear weapons in a 4 year term, that would mean about an 84% chance of use in the past 70 years. Stathis No, I would have gone with about 1% each. The current two front runners are about 10 times and 12 times riskier than their predecessors in my estimation. Their opponent is safer in every area I can think of, every single one. We just need to get over the outdated notion that only those two parties can win. We really should get that. Reasoning: in the past, the newspapers and mainstream TV news were the only real sources of information. Now we have the internet, we have good alternatives. We can find out things our predecessors could not. We can do as Bobby Kennedy suggested: look at things which have never been, then ask: Why not? Where is the hard and fast rule that says all presidents must be either Republican or Democrat? Who is telling us that, and what are their credentials? Or are we all just too conservative and change resistant? Is there a law that insists it can only be one of those two forever? It can only be whoever the press tells us we can choose from? Can anyone else ever win even if he is clearly better? Why not? Can we not hear the approaching steps of the girl with the hammer? Why not? I can. Can you? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 03:43:19 2016 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 13:43:19 +1000 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> Message-ID: You think Hilary Clinton is 12 times as likely to start a nuclear war as her predecessors? Why? On 2 June 2016 at 12:41, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *Stathis Papaioannou > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 01, 2016 7:11 PM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump > > > > With a 10% chance that a US president would use nuclear weapons in a 4 > year term, that would mean about an 84% chance of use in the past 70 > years. Stathis > > > > > > No, I would have gone with about 1% each. The current two front runners > are about 10 times and 12 times riskier than their predecessors in my > estimation. > > > > Their opponent is safer in every area I can think of, every single one. > We just need to get over the outdated notion that only those two parties > can win. We really should get that. Reasoning: in the past, the > newspapers and mainstream TV news were the only real sources of > information. Now we have the internet, we have good alternatives. We can > find out things our predecessors could not. > > > > We can do as Bobby Kennedy suggested: look at things which have never > been, then ask: Why not? Where is the hard and fast rule that says all > presidents must be either Republican or Democrat? Who is telling us that, > and what are their credentials? Or are we all just too conservative and > change resistant? Is there a law that insists it can only be one of those > two forever? It can only be whoever the press tells us we can choose > from? Can anyone else ever win even if he is clearly better? Why not? > Can we not hear the approaching steps of the girl with the hammer? Why > not? I can. Can you? > > > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From spike66 at att.net Thu Jun 2 04:57:29 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 1 Jun 2016 21:57:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> Message-ID: <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stathis Papaioannou Sent: Wednesday, June 01, 2016 8:43 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump >?You think Hilary Clinton is 12 times as likely to start a nuclear war as her predecessors? Why? She is a known power abuser who has disregarded the rules and laws. Those email messages she erased were under subpoena. The server itself was under subpoena. Those who participated in erasing the evidence that knew they were breaking the law. Whatever process was used to get that information to her unsecured server (which we still don?t know how that was done) was a felony, specifically treason. Whoever did that knew they were committing treason. Clinton and her staff knew there was sensitive information on that server. My theory is that foreign governments have that erased email, and it contains yoga routines and wedding plans that would send Mrs. Clinton to prison for life, along with her staff (who helped erase it.) Those foreign governments are then free to make a deal if Clinton is elected: nuke this bastard over here, or we leak. Mrs. Clinton is the kind of person who would nuke in order to keep those yoga routines secret, or at least nuke anyone she thought could not nuke us back. The 12% is just an estimate on my part. I know this stuff is guesswork. I have been watching PredictIt, so I tend to think of everything in terms of prices. If memes go up DonaldNuke and HillaryNuke, I would estimate their value at about 10 cents and 12 cents respectively. Their predecessors I would have estimated at about 1 cent, possibly 2 for Reagan (god might have told him to nuke the commies (but he couldn?t remember how to do it so his price might be back down to 1 cent.)) With Trump, he might nuke someone in a snit I suppose. If he gets elected, they would give him a training course on modern nuclear weapons, explain to him we don?t just drop one nuke, we fire a string of them from a missile. They are not suited to tactical use; they are doomsday weapons, prepare to unleash everything, etc. My guess is he won?t do it. But he seems much riskier than his predecessors, and he is a known power abuser (the eminent domain land grabs.) Johnson seems so sane and safe in comparison with these two front runners. Hell even Bernie Sanders seems sane in comparison to these two. When Bernie Sanders seems sane in comparison, it is a bad sign indeed. If the mainstream press will cover him, I think Johnson could beat these yahoos. The irony runs deep: in 2000, the Supreme Court chose our president. This year the FBI and the mainstream press have that job. They will tell us who we can elect. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From protokol2020 at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 06:44:53 2016 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 08:44:53 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> Message-ID: Say that past presidents were Spke, John, Stathis Papaioannou and few other list members... Not Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford ... Obama, Trump. What would be our survival chances to 2020? Bigger? Not necessary. On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 6:57 AM, spike wrote: > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *Stathis Papaioannou > *Sent:* Wednesday, June 01, 2016 8:43 PM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump > > > > >?You think Hilary Clinton is 12 times as likely to start a nuclear war as > her predecessors? Why? > > > > > > She is a known power abuser who has disregarded the rules and laws. Those > email messages she erased were under subpoena. The server itself was under > subpoena. Those who participated in erasing the evidence that knew they > were breaking the law. Whatever process was used to get that information > to her unsecured server (which we still don?t know how that was done) was a > felony, specifically treason. Whoever did that knew they were committing > treason. Clinton and her staff knew there was sensitive information on > that server. > > > > My theory is that foreign governments have that erased email, and it > contains yoga routines and wedding plans that would send Mrs. Clinton to > prison for life, along with her staff (who helped erase it.) Those foreign > governments are then free to make a deal if Clinton is elected: nuke this > bastard over here, or we leak. Mrs. Clinton is the kind of person who > would nuke in order to keep those yoga routines secret, or at least nuke > anyone she thought could not nuke us back. > > > > The 12% is just an estimate on my part. I know this stuff is guesswork. > I have been watching PredictIt, so I tend to think of everything in terms > of prices. If memes go up DonaldNuke and HillaryNuke, I would estimate > their value at about 10 cents and 12 cents respectively. Their > predecessors I would have estimated at about 1 cent, possibly 2 for Reagan > (god might have told him to nuke the commies (but he couldn?t remember how > to do it so his price might be back down to 1 cent.)) > > > > With Trump, he might nuke someone in a snit I suppose. If he gets > elected, they would give him a training course on modern nuclear weapons, > explain to him we don?t just drop one nuke, we fire a string of them from a > missile. They are not suited to tactical use; they are doomsday weapons, > prepare to unleash everything, etc. My guess is he won?t do it. But he > seems much riskier than his predecessors, and he is a known power abuser > (the eminent domain land grabs.) > > > > Johnson seems so sane and safe in comparison with these two front > runners. Hell even Bernie Sanders seems sane in comparison to these two. > When Bernie Sanders seems sane in comparison, it is a bad sign indeed. > > > > If the mainstream press will cover him, I think Johnson could beat these > yahoos. The irony runs deep: in 2000, the Supreme Court chose our > president. This year the FBI and the mainstream press have that job. They > will tell us who we can elect. > > > > 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: From anders at aleph.se Thu Jun 2 07:50:16 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 08:50:16 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Censorship In-Reply-To: References: <17F982E8-3A8F-40F1-98BA-47C08E9E87C6@gmail.com> <57495715.20008@aleph.se> Message-ID: <4cc459c1-3082-fa7e-04e8-f9dd99a6e8bc@aleph.se> On 2016-06-01 18:39, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > On Jun 1, 2016 1:49 AM, "Anders" > wrote: > > On 2016-05-31 20:36, Adrian Tymes wrote: > >> On May 28, 2016 1:31 AM, "Anders Sandberg" > wrote: > >> > if it is not possible to have a debate about whether they should > be changed, then society is not open. > >> > >> Does this include where the opponents of change simply refuse to > engage in honest debate, making up facts to support their position? > That is something that said opponents can not usually be forced to > change or concede. > > > > Sometimes. But if the proponents of change have a compelling > narrative that can attract people, then the lack of honest debate from > one side can become counterproductive for them in the end. > > But that is still a one sided debate, and thus not open, correct? > One sided debates are still open, although they are far weaker in creating legitimate consensus in a society. Consider the intellectual property debate. The content industry was firmly uninterested in sponsoring any deeper defenses of IP as real and important property - there would not have been a shortage of libertarian/conservative think tanks taking their coin and doing it, but the industry felt that it had the law on their side and hence at most needed to defend the law. So what happened was that the wider debate became dominated by "IP liberals" and pirates - not enough yet to change the laws, but the next political generation (not to mention the public) has absolutely no belief these laws are legitimate. That is going to be a disaster for the content world, since they will have to lobby like crazy to maintain the status quo. Incidentally, I am glad for this thread since I was roped in to participate in a panel on art and censorship at the literary/philosophy conference I am attending - I had a lot of use of our past exchange. Today I managed to allow me to be roped into a panel on enhancement with a sf author I like (Richard Morgan)... ah, academic life is so tough ;-) -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Jun 2 15:40:10 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 08:40:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] cool video of friday's spacex landing at sea Message-ID: <00a301d1bce5$0ce76900$26b63b00$@att.net> This is cool: http://www.theverge.com/2016/5/27/11804110/watch-spacex-falcon-9-landing-onb oard-video I haven't found a realtime onboard video. This one is timelapsed. spike https://youtu.be/4jEz03Z8azc https://youtu.be/4jEz03Z8azc -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 15:55:17 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 11:55:17 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:43 PM, Stathis Papaioannou wrote: ?> ? > You think Hilary Clinton is 12 times as likely to start a nuclear war as > her predecessors? Why? > ?The answer is obvious, because she had a bad Email server. ?John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 16:29:24 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 12:29:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> Message-ID: ?OK I admit it, I just don't get it. *Accusation*: Trump thinks we should torture people just for the sake of torture. *Rebuttal:* Yeah but Hillary had a insecure Email server. *Accusation* *?:* Trump wants to encourage lots of other countries to get Nuclear Weapons including Saudi Arabia ?.? *Rebuttal:* Yeah but Hillary had a insecure Email server. *Accusation* *?:*? Trump refused to take the ?first ? use of nuclear weapons ?"? off the table ?"? in any situation, including in Europe or the Middle East ?. *Rebuttal:* Yeah but Hillary had a insecure Email server. *Accusation?:?* Trump ? wants to increase government censorship by making libel laws much tougher. ? *Rebuttal: *Yeah but Hillary had a insecure Email server. *Accusation?:?* Trump ? wants to reduce free trade and start trade wars.? *Rebuttal: *Yeah but Hillary had a insecure Email server. *Accusation?:?* Trump ? wants to consider renouncing the national debt. *Rebuttal:* Yeah but Hillary had a insecure Email server. *Accusation?:? *Trump ? thinks vaccination causes autism. ? *Rebuttal: *Yeah but Hillary had a insecure Email server. *Accusation?:?* Trump ? thinks women should be punished for having abortions. *Rebuttal: *Yeah but Hillary had a insecure Email server. *Accusation?:?* Trump ? wants to build a fucking wall. *Rebuttal:* Yeah but Hillary had a insecure Email server. ?I just don't get it. John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 17:19:46 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 12:19:46 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> Message-ID: *Accusation?:?* Trump ? thinks women should be punished for having abortions. *Rebuttal: *Yeah but Hillary had a insecure Email server. *Accusation?:?* Trump ? wants to build a fucking wall. *Rebuttal:* Yeah but Hillary had a insecure Email server. ?I just don't get it. John K Clark Yeah, you get it, but maybe some others don't. My state of Mississippi will go for Trump because they are Neanderthals, but it might just matter elsewhere if those against Hillary vote for the Libertarian and take votes away from Clinton. Hold your nose and vote for Clinton. Don't take a chance. bill w On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 11:29 AM, John Clark wrote: > ?OK I admit it, I just don't get it. > > *Accusation*: Trump thinks we should torture people just for the sake of > torture. > *Rebuttal:* Yeah but Hillary had a insecure Email server. > *Accusation* > *?:* Trump wants to encourage lots of other countries to get Nuclear > Weapons including > Saudi Arabia > ?.? > *Rebuttal:* Yeah but Hillary had a insecure Email server. > > *Accusation* > *?:*? > Trump refused to take the > ?first ? > use of nuclear weapons > ?"? > off the table > ?"? > in any situation, including in Europe or the Middle East > ?. > *Rebuttal:* Yeah but Hillary had a insecure Email server. > *Accusation?:?* Trump > ? wants to increase government censorship by making libel laws much > tougher. ? > > *Rebuttal: *Yeah but Hillary had a insecure Email server. > *Accusation?:?* Trump > ? wants to reduce free trade and start trade wars.? > > *Rebuttal: *Yeah but Hillary had a insecure Email server. > *Accusation?:?* Trump > ? wants to consider renouncing the national debt. > *Rebuttal:* Yeah but Hillary had a insecure Email server. > *Accusation?:? *Trump > ? thinks vaccination causes autism. ? > > *Rebuttal: *Yeah but Hillary had a insecure Email server. > *Accusation?:?* Trump > ? thinks women should be punished for having abortions. > > *Rebuttal: *Yeah but Hillary had a insecure Email server. > *Accusation?:?* Trump > ? wants to build a fucking wall. > > *Rebuttal:* Yeah but Hillary had a insecure Email server. > > ?I just don't get it. > > John K Clark? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 17:33:52 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 13:33:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:19 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Yeah, you get it, but maybe some others don't. My state of Mississippi > will go for Trump because they are Neanderthals, but it might just matter > elsewhere if those against Hillary vote for the Libertarian and take votes > away from Clinton. > If you think Trump is that bad, feel free to vote for Clinton. But don't assume that everyone feels that way. Between the two I don't really care which wins: they're both power hungry authoritarians unfit for the office. Voting for the lesser of two evils is still voting for evil, and I won't be part of that. The only way I can see myself voting in November is if Johnson gets onto the national stage, e.g. via inclusion in a debate. Hold your nose and vote for Clinton. Don't take a chance. > Vote for whomever you want to vote for or don't vote at all. You don't have any obligation to anyone but yourself. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 17:52:21 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 13:52:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:19 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?> ? > My state of Mississippi will go for Trump because they are Neanderthals, > but it might just matter elsewhere if those against Hillary vote for the > Libertarian and take votes away from Clinton. > ?I don't think so. Judging from this list libertarians ?hate Hillary far more than they hate Trump and so ? Gary Johnson ? will likely take more votes from Trump than from Hillary; in fact libertarians seem to rather like Trump despite the fact that he holds the most un-libertarian ?positions of any presidential candidate since 1968. I don't pretend to understand why libertarians are behaving in this very odd manner but the fact remains they are, I can't doubt the evidence of my eyes. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 17:58:00 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 13:58:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:33 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > ?> ? > Between the two I don't really care which wins > If Donald Trump doesn't frighten you then you don't understand the situation. John K Clark ? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 18:02:56 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 13:02:56 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> Message-ID: I don't think so. Judging from this list libertarians ?hate Hillary far more than they hate Trump and so ? Gary Johnson ? will likely take more votes from Trump than from Hillary; in fact libertarians seem to rather like Trump despite the fact that he holds the most un-libertarian ?positions of any presidential candidate since 1968. I don't pretend to understand why libertarians are behaving in this very odd manner but the fact remains they are, I can't doubt the evidence of my eyes. John K Clark Well, I guess now I am in the boat with you. I don't get it. But saying that you don't have any obligation to anyone but yourself, as Dave did, is a vote for anarchy. I most strongly disagree. With rights come duties. Saying that Trump and Clinton are equivalent is just not paying attention. Not voting reminds me of the saying that all it takes for evil to win is for good people to do nothing. bill w On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 12:52 PM, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:19 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > ?> ? >> My state of Mississippi will go for Trump because they are Neanderthals, >> but it might just matter elsewhere if those against Hillary vote for the >> Libertarian and take votes away from Clinton. >> > > ?I don't think so. Judging from this list > libertarians > ?hate Hillary far more than they hate Trump and so ? > Gary Johnson > ? will likely take more votes from Trump than from Hillary; in fact > libertarians seem to rather like Trump despite the fact that he holds the > most un-libertarian ?positions of any presidential candidate since 1968. I > don't pretend to understand why libertarians are behaving in this very odd > manner but the fact remains they are, I can't doubt the evidence of my eyes. > > John K Clark > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Jun 2 17:50:13 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 10:50:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> Message-ID: <006601d1bcf7$37b444c0$a71cce40$@att.net> On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 11:43 PM, Stathis Papaioannou > wrote: ?> ?>?You think Hilary Clinton is 12 times as likely to start a nuclear war as her predecessors? Why? ?>?The answer is obvious, because she had a bad Email server?John K Clark? ?which enables bad guys to blackmail her into doing anything they want. Laws exist for a reason. No one is exempt. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 18:05:35 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:05:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:58 PM, John Clark wrote: > If Donald Trump doesn't frighten you then you don't understand the > situation. They both frighten me. In the long run, I don't think it matters who wins because our government(s) are so broken that I don't think they're fixable. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Jun 2 17:53:36 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 10:53:36 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <007001d1bcf7$b0ada8d0$1208fa70$@att.net> >.. On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump ?OK I admit it, I just don't get it. Accusation: Trump thinks we should torture people just for the sake of torture. Rebuttal: Yeah but Hillary had a insecure Email server. ? ?>?I just don't get it? John K Clark? Sure you do John, and so do the rest of us. These two are not qualified. Both are disqualified. Don?t vote for them. Encourage others to find an alternative. There is a good one. Go there. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 18:15:09 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:15:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:02 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Saying that Trump and Clinton are equivalent is just not paying attention. > I didn't say they were equivalent, I said they both scare me. I'm not going to vote for someone I don't want to be President because I don't want them to be President less than some other candidate. > Not voting reminds me of the saying that all it takes for evil to win is > for good people to do nothing. > IMO, Clinton vs. Trump is Evil vs. Evil. I'm not playing that game. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 18:21:58 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:21:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: <006601d1bcf7$37b444c0$a71cce40$@att.net> References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <006601d1bcf7$37b444c0$a71cce40$@att.net> Message-ID: Spike, I must say you're being incredibly naive. Vote for one of the two or throw your vote away. Hillary is status quo. If you think she's worse than any of our past evil presidents then you are deluded. The only reason I could honestly think of why you have this opinion is a deep-seated and perhaps unknown to your conscious mind misogyny. Hillary is more of the same. She did some illegal and immoral bullshit, just like all the past presidents. And honestly a woman isn't gonna launch a first strike. They have their heads on straighter on account of not having ball juice running through their heads telling them to either fuck or destroy everything. Not to be sexist, which I don't really think that was, except against men I guess. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 18:25:22 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:25:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:02 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?> ? > Saying that Trump and Clinton are equivalent is just not paying attention. > ?Exactly. I can think of plenty of people I'd rather have as president, but at this point my wishes don't enter into it. ?The hard fact is like it or not we're stuck with these two and one of them is going to have the Nuclear launch Codes for the next 4 years. ?And one of them is crazy and one of them is not. *Equivalent my ass! * John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 18:37:10 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:37:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:05 PM, Dave Sill wrote: ?> ? > I don't think it matters who wins because our government(s) are so broken > that I don't think they're fixable. > ?You're in denial. Trident Nuclear Submarines are part of the government and they're NOT broken, they work just fine. When Trump had his public tantrum yesterday I tried to imagine what he would tell the commanders of those submarine to do during the next 911 or Cuban Missile Crises. It was not a pleasant thought. ? ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 18:42:51 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:42:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:37 PM, John Clark wrote: > You're in denial. Trident Nuclear Submarines are part of the government > and they're NOT broken, they work just fine. When Trump had his public > tantrum yesterday I tried to imagine what he would tell the commanders of > those submarine to do during the next 911 or Cuban Missile Crises. It was > not a pleasant thought. ? > I'm in denial? You're the one who thinks voting for Clinton will avert disaster. :-) -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 18:51:54 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:51:54 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: <007001d1bcf7$b0ada8d0$1208fa70$@att.net> References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <007001d1bcf7$b0ada8d0$1208fa70$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:53 PM, spike wrote: ?> ? > These two are not qualified. Both are disqualified. ? No both are qualified. ? ? Both are over 35, ? ? both ? ? were born in the USA, ? ? and ? ? both were permanent residents ? ? of the ? ? USA for ?over? 14 years ?. The constitution does not insist that a candidate be sane ?,? nevertheless I can't help but think that would be a plus ? ? and ?that's why I'm voting for ? Hillary ?. John K Clark ? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Jun 2 18:55:28 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 11:55:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <006601d1bcf7$37b444c0$a71cce40$@att.net> Message-ID: <00c801d1bd00$5517d550$ff477ff0$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of Will Steinberg Subject: Re: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump >?Spike, I must say you're being incredibly naive. Vote for one of the two or throw your vote away? Will, that attitude is exactly what keeps us choosing between bad alternatives. Who is telling us there are only two choices? That guy up on the screen? Do I hear approaching footsteps? >? The only reason I could honestly think of why you have this opinion is a deep-seated and perhaps unknown to your conscious mind misogyny? I see. So all those who abhorred Sarah Palin were misogynists? If you opposed her policies or anything else about her, too bad pal, you are a misogynist. You hate women, can?t have one as VP. Will, what was your opinion on Sarah Palin? Same BS we heard for anyone who opposed Obama, regardless of the reason: we were racists. That is the only reason we could possibly oppose him, absolutely regardless of his positions. You see where that got us. We have now the most corrupt administration in US history. I didn?t buy the racist bit, and I am not buying the sexist part either. I didn?t like Palin because I thought she was unqualified for VP. I didn?t like Obamao because I thought he was unqualified for P. No racism, no sexism. Resumes only. >? Hillary is more of the same. She did some illegal and immoral bullshit, just like all the past presidents. This one is different Will. We already know this one is corrupt on the way in. We already know she is vulnerable to blackmail. I don?t think we have a single other example of that in history. Do we? Who? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Jun 2 18:43:45 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 11:43:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace >?My state of Mississippi will go for Trump because they are Neanderthals? Speciesist! Neanderthals were smart almost-people BillW. Interbreeding with them is how we got this way. >?Hold your nose and vote for Clinton? Or vote for Johnson and breathe freely. No stink at all on that man. >?Don't take a chance?bill w Holding your nose to vote is taking a big chance. The lesser of two evils is still evil. Eschew change-averse attitudes. Have courage. Hope and Change. We need a big change. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 19:24:00 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:24:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] education again In-Reply-To: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> References: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 8:42 AM, spike wrote: > Suggestions please? http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2016/06/its-time-to-ditch-4-years-of-costly.html *Short, intense directed apprenticeships that teach students how to learn on their own to mastery are the future of higher education.* *So it turns out sitting in a chair for four years doesn't deliver mastery in anything but the acquisition of staggering student-loan debt.* Practical (i.e. useful) mastery requires not just hours of practice but *directed deep learning via doing* of the sort you only get in an apprenticeship. The failure of our model of largely passive learning and rote practice is explained by Daniel Coyle in his book The Talent Code (sent to me by Ron G.), which upends the notion that talent is a genetic gift. It isn't--in his words, it's grown by *deep practice*, the *ignition of motivation* and *master coaching*. *Using these techniques, student reach levels of accomplishment in months that surpass those of students who spent years in hyper-costly conventional education programs.* The potential to radically improve our higher education system while reducing the cost of that education by 90% is the topic of my books Get a Job, Build a Real Career and Defy a Bewildering Economy and The Nearly Free University and the Emerging Economy: The Revolution in Higher Education . *Let's start by admitting our system of higher education is unsustainable and broken: a complete failure by any reasonable, objective standard.* Tuition has soared $1,100% while the output of the system (the economic/educational value of a college degree) has declined precipitously. A recent major study, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses , concluded that *"American higher education is characterized by limited or no learning for a large proportion of students."* 'Academically Adrift': The News Gets Worse and Worse (The Chronicle of Higher Education) *These two charts are the acme of unsustainability: college tuition has skyrocketed, along with federally funded student loan debt.* *The typical graduate of a short, intense directed apprenticeship says "I learned more in a month here than I did in four years of college."* This is a statement of fact, and it is the result of the methods deployed in structured on-the-job training. It is a fact that passively listening to a lecture does not generate the sort of mastery that creates economic value or the sort of deep understanding that is the goal of a classic liberal arts education. It's also a fact that rote practice also doesn't lead to mastery, and often kills the very passion for a subject that in more productive programs jumpstarts mastery. *Our higher educational system has failed so badly that many students are incapable of writing/communicating effectively.* In a world of rapidly changing technologies across every field and an emerging economy that places an ever-higher premium on collaboration and clear communication across multiple time zones and languages, the ability to write clearly is absolutely essential. To "graduate" students with poor writing skills is completely unforgivable. Yet in the current system, if a student logs the requisite number of credits, a diploma is duly issued, regardless of how little he/she actually learned. *Here's a six-month program that could replace four years of hyper-costly, ineffective university.* 1. Teach the students how to learn on their own, for the rest of their lives. This could take as little as a few hours or days. Once a student learns how to pursue deep learning and deep practice on their own, they don't need years of classrooms--they just need the guidance of someone experienced in the field, i.e. a structured apprenticeship. 2. One semester in a wide variety of on-the-job experiences. Once students are given real experience in a variety of fields and industries, it's likely some spark of ignition will occur and they'll find the motivation to pursue real mastery instead of a worthless credential. 3. Directed apprenticeships plus online lectures/workshops by the best lecturers viewed before or after the students' real work. The key to learning deeply and learning fast is to push right up against the current level of competence, where failure occurs and can be addressed one piece at a time. Interestingly, Coyle notes that the most successful incubators of talent around the world are generally in makeshift or decrepit buildings, not fancy new gleaming buildings of the sort that dot American college campuses. Surrounded by luxury, who feels any hunger to learn anything voraciously? *The entire "campus experience" should be jettisoned, not just as an overly expensive infrastructure but as a detriment to fast, deep learning that is the foundation of mastery.* It isn't that hard to teach students how to improve their writing/communications skills very quickly, and give them a taste of the classic liberal arts education so many people claim is the goal of $120,000 four-year programs that fail to generate a deep understanding of anything remotely leading to mastery. Give them a single sentence by Melville, Austin, et al. and have them compose a sentence that is like the original in cadence, structure and meaning in one minute flat. Go, go, go. Then break down each phrase and each component and work through each one to improve their first efforts, step by step. Repeat the process, always under intense time pressure. Then take them out into the real world to report a journalistic story by interviewing people, checking facts, confirming quotes from sources, question the received wisdom around the topic and compose the story in journalistic style. Once again, break down their efforts line by line in comparison with a professional journalists' story on the same topic. Then, in the second class... more doing the work at a breakneck pace, more being pushed beyond their current level of expertise, more corrections of errors and weaknesses, step by step, in a pressure-cooker of deadlines. I can pretty much guarantee the students in such a directed apprenticeship will learn more about writing in a week than they would in a year of conventional coursework. *Short, intense directed apprenticeships that teach students how to learn on their own to mastery are the future of higher education*. We can continue to squander trillions of dollars on an ineffective system until it finally collapses under its own weight, or we can admit the current contraption is unsustainable and a failure, and move on to a better, cheaper system. *A Radically Beneficial World: Automation, Technology and Creating Jobs for All is now available as an Audible audio book.* *My new book is #2 on Kindle short reads -> politics and social science: Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle ebook, $8.95 print edition)For more, please visit the book's website .* -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 20:41:57 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:41:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] education again In-Reply-To: References: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> Message-ID: The failure of our model of largely passive learning and rote practice is explained by Daniel Coyle in his book The Talent Code (sent to me by Ron G.), which upends the notion that talent is a genetic gift. It isn't--in his words, it's grown by *deep practice*, the *ignition of motivation* and *master coaching*. BS - this is the same old tired old Blank Slate idea that genetics doesn't count for anything. This idea should have died with Skinner, or at the very least after reading Pinker's Blank Slate. I assume massive amounts of data accompanied The Talent Code? I have to doubt it. I have no opinion on the rest of this post. But you don't make geniuses with practice. bill w On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 8:42 AM, spike wrote: > >> Suggestions please? > > > > http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2016/06/its-time-to-ditch-4-years-of-costly.html > > *Short, intense directed apprenticeships that teach students how to learn > on their own to mastery are the future of higher education.* > *So it turns out sitting in a chair for four years doesn't deliver mastery > in anything but the acquisition of staggering student-loan debt.* Practical > (i.e. useful) mastery requires not just hours of practice but *directed > deep learning via doing* of the sort you only get in an apprenticeship. > The failure of our model of largely passive learning and rote practice is > explained by Daniel Coyle in his book The Talent Code > (sent > to me by Ron G.), which upends the notion that talent is a genetic gift. It > isn't--in his words, it's grown by *deep practice*, the *ignition of > motivation* and *master coaching*. > *Using these techniques, student reach levels of accomplishment in months > that surpass those of students who spent years in hyper-costly conventional > education programs.* The potential to radically improve our higher > education system while reducing the cost of that education by 90% is the > topic of my books Get a Job, Build a Real Career and Defy a Bewildering > Economy > > and The Nearly Free University and the Emerging Economy: The Revolution > in Higher Education > > . > *Let's start by admitting our system of higher education is unsustainable > and broken: a complete failure by any reasonable, objective standard.* Tuition > has soared $1,100% while the output of the system (the economic/educational > value of a college degree) has declined precipitously. > A recent major study, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College > Campuses > , > concluded that *"American higher education is characterized by limited or > no learning for a large proportion of students."* > 'Academically Adrift': The News Gets Worse and Worse > (The > Chronicle of Higher Education) > *These two charts are the acme of unsustainability: college tuition has > skyrocketed, along with federally funded student loan debt.* > *The typical graduate of a short, intense directed apprenticeship says "I > learned more in a month here than I did in four years of college."* This > is a statement of fact, and it is the result of the methods deployed in > structured on-the-job training. > > It is a fact that passively listening to a lecture does not generate the > sort of mastery that creates economic value or the sort of deep > understanding that is the goal of a classic liberal arts education. > It's also a fact that rote practice also doesn't lead to mastery, and > often kills the very passion for a subject that in more productive programs > jumpstarts mastery. > *Our higher educational system has failed so badly that many students are > incapable of writing/communicating effectively.* In a world of rapidly > changing technologies across every field and an emerging economy that > places an ever-higher premium on collaboration and clear communication > across multiple time zones and languages, the ability to write clearly is > absolutely essential. > To "graduate" students with poor writing skills is completely > unforgivable. Yet in the current system, if a student logs the requisite > number of credits, a diploma is duly issued, regardless of how little > he/she actually learned. > *Here's a six-month program that could replace four years of hyper-costly, > ineffective university.* > 1. Teach the students how to learn on their own, for the rest of their > lives. This could take as little as a few hours or days. Once a student > learns how to pursue deep learning and deep practice on their own, they > don't need years of classrooms--they just need the guidance of someone > experienced in the field, i.e. a structured apprenticeship. > 2. One semester in a wide variety of on-the-job experiences. Once students > are given real experience in a variety of fields and industries, it's > likely some spark of ignition will occur and they'll find the motivation to > pursue real mastery instead of a worthless credential. > 3. Directed apprenticeships plus online lectures/workshops by the best > lecturers viewed before or after the students' real work. The key to > learning deeply and learning fast is to push right up against the current > level of competence, where failure occurs and can be addressed one piece at > a time. > Interestingly, Coyle notes that the most successful incubators of talent > around the world are generally in makeshift or decrepit buildings, not > fancy new gleaming buildings of the sort that dot American college > campuses. Surrounded by luxury, who feels any hunger to learn anything > voraciously? > *The entire "campus experience" should be jettisoned, not just as an > overly expensive infrastructure but as a detriment to fast, deep learning > that is the foundation of mastery.* > It isn't that hard to teach students how to improve their > writing/communications skills very quickly, and give them a taste of the > classic liberal arts education so many people claim is the goal of $120,000 > four-year programs that fail to generate a deep understanding of anything > remotely leading to mastery. > Give them a single sentence by Melville, Austin, et al. and have them > compose a sentence that is like the original in cadence, structure and > meaning in one minute flat. Go, go, go. Then break down each phrase and > each component and work through each one to improve their first efforts, > step by step. Repeat the process, always under intense time pressure. > Then take them out into the real world to report a journalistic story by > interviewing people, checking facts, confirming quotes from sources, > question the received wisdom around the topic and compose the story in > journalistic style. Once again, break down their efforts line by line in > comparison with a professional journalists' story on the same topic. > Then, in the second class... more doing the work at a breakneck pace, more > being pushed beyond their current level of expertise, more corrections of > errors and weaknesses, step by step, in a pressure-cooker of deadlines. > I can pretty much guarantee the students in such a directed apprenticeship > will learn more about writing in a week than they would in a year of > conventional coursework. > *Short, intense directed apprenticeships that teach students how to learn > on their own to mastery are the future of higher education*. We can > continue to squander trillions of dollars on an ineffective system until it > finally collapses under its own weight, or we can admit the current > contraption is unsustainable and a failure, and move on to a better, > cheaper system. > > *A Radically Beneficial World: Automation, Technology and Creating Jobs > for All > is > now available as an Audible audio book.* > *My new book is #2 on Kindle short reads -> politics and social > science: Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform > ($3.95 > Kindle ebook, $8.95 print edition)For more, please visit the book's website > .* > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 20:48:28 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:48:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> Message-ID: If there is even the slightest chance that voting for a Libertarian would make a difference I would do it even though my vote would be lost here. I DO think there is more than a slight chance that Trump will win and that not voting for Hilary is the cause. Actually, I want to know just what kind of corrupt we are talking about. Cronyism? Nepotism? Stealing from the Treasury? Selling secrets to the Chinese? We can stand all of that better than we can stand Trump the Clueless. Re Neanderthal (of which I have a big dose) - Apologies for wrong choice of words. I should have said cavepeople. Tippytippy tip of the right wing. bill w On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 1:43 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > > > > *>?*My state of Mississippi will go for Trump because they are > Neanderthals? > > > > Speciesist! > > > > Neanderthals were smart almost-people BillW. Interbreeding with them is > how we got this way. > > > > >?Hold your nose and vote for Clinton? > > > > Or vote for Johnson and breathe freely. No stink at all on that man. > > > > >?Don't take a chance?bill w > > > > Holding your nose to vote is taking a big chance. The lesser of two evils > is still evil. Eschew change-averse attitudes. Have courage. Hope and > Change. We need a big change. > > > > spike > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Jun 2 21:53:13 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 14:53:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> Message-ID: <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump ? >?Actually, I want to know just what kind of corrupt we are talking about. Cronyism? Nepotism? Stealing from the Treasury? Selling secrets to the Chinese? Espionage BillW, which is treason. The FBI is investigating (not reviewing, investigating (there is a difference (a big one))) compromising national security in order to protect her own. Subsequent destruction of evidence and repeated systematic obstruction of justice. Now, we don?t know what has been compromised, so we can?t assess the risks. We don?t know which of the yoga routines the Russians and Chinese have or what is in them. So we have no idea what chaos could result. We don?t know what happens when a US Commander in Chief of a frightfully powerful military is at the mercy of a foreign power. All Mrs. Clinton needed to do is obey the law, hand over the server with everything on it as soon as the subpoena was issued. All Nixon needed to do was not erase those 18 minutes of tape. In both cases, all they would have found is yoga and wedding plans, boring stuff, perhaps love notes to Bill Clinton (which would have embarrassed Nixon I suppose) but it would be entirely harmless. Instead, Nixon chose to erase the tapes (so we still don?t know what was on there originally) and Clinton chose to delete 30,000 emails. So we don?t know what risks we face. In the latter case, we don?t know what was in there, but foreign powers probably do. We hear a lawyeresque ?there is no proof the unsecured server was ever hacked.? But when you handle national security matters, the burden of proof is on the clearance holder. That?s why you have Inspectors General: to help you be sure you can prove innocence if you are doing everything right. If you cannot, you are presumed guilty. The public doesn?t quite get it, and plenty of people here don?t get this either: Mrs. Clinton has the burden of proof that she was not hacked. I have seen nothing convincing to prove this. We must assume the bad guys have all of those yoga routines. If we elect Clinton president, our military might is at the mercy of foreign powers and hackers. Feel better about voting for her now? >?We can stand all of that better than we can stand Trump the Clueless? Ja if it was merely stealing and selling secrets to the Chinese (and we all knew what was stolen, how it was stolen, what secrets were sold) then I agree. But we don?t know any of that. The evidence is missing. How did that happen I wonder? To assert that the risk of nuclear war or other military strike is lower under Clinton and Trump sounds like wishful speculation to me. I think it is way lower under a Johnson than either. He seems so refreshingly honest and sane by comparison. >?Re Neanderthal (of which I have a big dose) - Apologies for wrong choice of words. I should have said cavepeople. Tippytippy tip of the right wing?bill w Do we know that humans ever lived in caves to any great extent? There aren?t that many caves. I can?t imagine there are enough of them to support a critical mass of humans, but I can imagine proto-humans creating some kind of shelter. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 22:41:35 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 15:41:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Farmbot, anyone? Message-ID: <002A0007-66AA-4B09-8816-C5F47028AAB4@gmail.com> https://farmbot.io I've seen harvester bots, so this isn't such a big leap. Ditto for using drones in farming. In a recent issue of Science News, too, they mentioned using a helicopter to map Angor Wat with a lidar. Just wondering why this can be done via drone for the entire jungle, etc. Regards, Dan My latest Kindle book "The Late Mr. Gurlitt" is now available at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 22:47:57 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 18:47:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?> ? > If there is even the slightest chance that voting for a Libertarian would > make a difference I would do it even though my vote would be lost here. > ?Me too, and I've actually voted for libertarian presidential candidates in the past, although they were such nonentities I can't at the moment recall their names. I felt free to do so as a protest vote because back then the 2 major party candidates were both sane and neither was likely to get me killed. But that isn't the case this time, this time only one of them is sane. ? ?> ? > Re Neanderthal (of which I have a big dose) - Apologies for wrong choice > of words. > ? Calling Trump a ? ? Neanderthal is a ? ? grave insult to ? ? Neanderthals, better to call him a orange Orangutan; but you need to do so now before Trump changes the libel laws and makes it ? ? not a civil offence but ? ? a criminal ? ? offence ? ? just as it is ? ? in much of Europe, and saying that Trump is a public figure would be no defence. Forget about getting a fine, ? ? President Trump could throw you in prison if you say something about him he doesn't like. And yet libertarians love this ape. Go figure. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu Thu Jun 2 22:53:48 2016 From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 18:53:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] education again In-Reply-To: References: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> Message-ID: <69073F72-9528-4BE7-B844-B8078D9322DA@alumni.virginia.edu> Bill, I see where you are coming from, but you should check the research of Scott Miller and Barry Duncan. They showed that assessing baseline performance, engaging in deliberate practice, and getting feedback are what set apart extreme performers from the (possibly similarly genetically endowed) high performers in sports, musicianship, and other fields. Their focus was on applying this to psychotherapists btw. This does not discount the power of genetics. Also we are not talking about making geniuses either. This is about developing superior performance on tasks that lend themselves to that. I think this is probably applicable to apprenticeship fields as referenced in the ad/post. -Henry > On Jun 2, 2016, at 4:41 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > The failure of our model of largely passive learning and rote practice is explained by Daniel Coyle in his book The Talent Code (sent to me by Ron G.), which upends the notion that talent is a genetic gift. It isn't--in his words, it's grown by deep practice, the ignition of motivation and master coaching. > BS - this is the same old tired old Blank Slate idea that genetics doesn't count for anything. > > This idea should have died with Skinner, or at the very least after reading Pinker's Blank Slate. > > I assume massive amounts of data accompanied The Talent Code? I have to doubt it. > > I have no opinion on the rest of this post. But you don't make geniuses with practice. > > bill w > >> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Dave Sill wrote: >>> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 8:42 AM, spike wrote: >>> Suggestions please? >> >> http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2016/06/its-time-to-ditch-4-years-of-costly.html >> >> Short, intense directed apprenticeships that teach students how to learn on their own to mastery are the future of higher education. >> So it turns out sitting in a chair for four years doesn't deliver mastery in anything but the acquisition of staggering student-loan debt. Practical (i.e. useful) mastery requires not just hours of practice but directed deep learning via doing of the sort you only get in an apprenticeship. >> The failure of our model of largely passive learning and rote practice is explained by Daniel Coyle in his book The Talent Code (sent to me by Ron G.), which upends the notion that talent is a genetic gift. It isn't--in his words, it's grown by deep practice, the ignition of motivation and master coaching. >> Using these techniques, student reach levels of accomplishment in months that surpass those of students who spent years in hyper-costly conventional education programs. The potential to radically improve our higher education system while reducing the cost of that education by 90% is the topic of my books Get a Job, Build a Real Career and Defy a Bewildering Economy and The Nearly Free University and the Emerging Economy: The Revolution in Higher Education. >> Let's start by admitting our system of higher education is unsustainable and broken: a complete failure by any reasonable, objective standard. Tuition has soared $1,100% while the output of the system (the economic/educational value of a college degree) has declined precipitously. >> A recent major study, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College Campuses, concluded that "American higher education is characterized by limited or no learning for a large proportion of students." >> 'Academically Adrift': The News Gets Worse and Worse (The Chronicle of Higher Education) >> These two charts are the acme of unsustainability: college tuition has skyrocketed, along with federally funded student loan debt. >> >> >> The typical graduate of a short, intense directed apprenticeship says "I learned more in a month here than I did in four years of college." This is a statement of fact, and it is the result of the methods deployed in structured on-the-job training. >> >> It is a fact that passively listening to a lecture does not generate the sort of mastery that creates economic value or the sort of deep understanding that is the goal of a classic liberal arts education. >> It's also a fact that rote practice also doesn't lead to mastery, and often kills the very passion for a subject that in more productive programs jumpstarts mastery. >> Our higher educational system has failed so badly that many students are incapable of writing/communicating effectively. In a world of rapidly changing technologies across every field and an emerging economy that places an ever-higher premium on collaboration and clear communication across multiple time zones and languages, the ability to write clearly is absolutely essential. >> To "graduate" students with poor writing skills is completely unforgivable. Yet in the current system, if a student logs the requisite number of credits, a diploma is duly issued, regardless of how little he/she actually learned. >> Here's a six-month program that could replace four years of hyper-costly, ineffective university. >> 1. Teach the students how to learn on their own, for the rest of their lives. This could take as little as a few hours or days. Once a student learns how to pursue deep learning and deep practice on their own, they don't need years of classrooms--they just need the guidance of someone experienced in the field, i.e. a structured apprenticeship. >> 2. One semester in a wide variety of on-the-job experiences. Once students are given real experience in a variety of fields and industries, it's likely some spark of ignition will occur and they'll find the motivation to pursue real mastery instead of a worthless credential. >> 3. Directed apprenticeships plus online lectures/workshops by the best lecturers viewed before or after the students' real work. The key to learning deeply and learning fast is to push right up against the current level of competence, where failure occurs and can be addressed one piece at a time. >> Interestingly, Coyle notes that the most successful incubators of talent around the world are generally in makeshift or decrepit buildings, not fancy new gleaming buildings of the sort that dot American college campuses. Surrounded by luxury, who feels any hunger to learn anything voraciously? >> The entire "campus experience" should be jettisoned, not just as an overly expensive infrastructure but as a detriment to fast, deep learning that is the foundation of mastery. >> It isn't that hard to teach students how to improve their writing/communications skills very quickly, and give them a taste of the classic liberal arts education so many people claim is the goal of $120,000 four-year programs that fail to generate a deep understanding of anything remotely leading to mastery. >> Give them a single sentence by Melville, Austin, et al. and have them compose a sentence that is like the original in cadence, structure and meaning in one minute flat. Go, go, go. Then break down each phrase and each component and work through each one to improve their first efforts, step by step. Repeat the process, always under intense time pressure. >> Then take them out into the real world to report a journalistic story by interviewing people, checking facts, confirming quotes from sources, question the received wisdom around the topic and compose the story in journalistic style. Once again, break down their efforts line by line in comparison with a professional journalists' story on the same topic. >> Then, in the second class... more doing the work at a breakneck pace, more being pushed beyond their current level of expertise, more corrections of errors and weaknesses, step by step, in a pressure-cooker of deadlines. >> I can pretty much guarantee the students in such a directed apprenticeship will learn more about writing in a week than they would in a year of conventional coursework. >> Short, intense directed apprenticeships that teach students how to learn on their own to mastery are the future of higher education. We can continue to squander trillions of dollars on an ineffective system until it finally collapses under its own weight, or we can admit the current contraption is unsustainable and a failure, and move on to a better, cheaper system. >> >> A Radically Beneficial World: Automation, Technology and Creating Jobs for All is now available as an Audible audio book. >> My new book is #2 on Kindle short reads -> politics and social science: Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform ($3.95 Kindle ebook, $8.95 print edition)For more, please visit the book's website. >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Jun 2 23:11:53 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 16:11:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> Message-ID: <003b01d1bd24$275f3bc0$761db340$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark >?better to call him a orange Orangutan; but you need to do so now before Trump changes the libel laws and makes it not a civil offence but a criminal offence just as it is in much of Europe? John K Clark It makes us appreciate that presidents cannot change libel laws. Congress and presidents working together cannot change that one, for the Constitution outranks them. The right of free speech cannot even be amended, for it is in the Bill of Rights. Rights are not permissions. The irony in all this John is that your favorite candidate commented that she would find the guy who made her cover-story video and prosecute him. On what charge? She didn?t say they would find the guy who was doing a parole violation (she didn?t know that at the time.) She wanted to prosecute him for making a video. And yet? she is safer and saner than the other mainstreamer? I see little difference in the threat of blue vs orange this time around. Both look crazy dangerous to me. Hear the footsteps. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 2 23:43:56 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 19:43:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:53 PM, spike wrote: > > >> ?>? >> ?Actually, I want to know just what kind of corrupt we are talking >> about. Cronyism? Nepotism? Stealing from the Treasury? Selling secrets >> to the Chinese? > > > > ?> ? > Espionage BillW, which is treason. > > ?Oh for Christ sake! ?Now it's treason? Now it's a capital offence? Do you think she should suffer the death penalty? Hillary violated state department rules not laws, and she did nothing the 5 previous secretaries of state didn't do, all of them used their private Email server for state department business, and unlike the case with Hillary with Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice ? plenty of them were marked "secret" or "confidential" at the time they were sent . And yes that is breaking the rules, and so is giving an account of a baseball game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball ?. And besides, since when is the most horrible thing that Extropians can imagine is the government not keeping its secrets tightly enough. Since when is that more horrible than torture for fun? ? ? > ?> ? > All Mrs. Clinton needed to do is obey the law, hand over the server with > everything on it as soon as the subpoena was issued. > > Subpoena? ? ? What ? ? subpoena? There was never any ? ? subpoena ? ? issued about those Emails. Hillary voluntarily ? gave 55,000 Emails that were on that server to the State Department. ? ? John K Clark? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 00:02:15 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 20:02:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: <003b01d1bd24$275f3bc0$761db340$@att.net> References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <003b01d1bd24$275f3bc0$761db340$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 7:11 PM, spike wrote: > ?> ? > It makes us appreciate that presidents cannot change libel laws. Congress > and presidents working together cannot change that one > > ?Sure they can, they're the government they can do anything. ?> ? > for the Constitution outranks them. > > ?And who interprets the Constitution? The Supreme Court? And who decides who's on the Supreme Court ?? The President and Congress. There are already a number of troglodytes on the court and they'd only need a few more and then call President Trump an ape and go to jail. ? ?> ? > The irony in all this John is that your favorite candidate commented that > she would find the guy who made her cover-story video and prosecute him. > > ?I thought I was well informed but I never heard even the slightest hint of something like that before now. Tell me more.? ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 3 00:57:44 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 17:57:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> Message-ID: <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark ? ?> ?Espionage BillW, which is treason. ?>?Oh for Christ sake! ?Now it's treason? Espionage is treason, ja. >? Now it's a capital offence? Do you think she should suffer the death penalty? No, that would be a bit harsh. Jeffrey Sterling got 3.5 years vacation at Club Fed, for erasing a single email after the court demanded he turn it over. >?Hillary violated state department rules not laws? False. She broke laws. That non-disclosure agreement she signed going in puts the signer at legal liability. Stand by for FBI report. >?and she did nothing the 5 previous secretaries of state didn't do? False. None of the previous 5 secretaries had their own servers (which would give them control over the evidence of wrongdoing.) None of previous 5 secretaries erased evidence. None of the predecessors diverted ALL state business into a privately controlled unsecured server with none of the requisite security systems, causing them to be an ?open orchid on the internet.? None of the previous five secretaries failed to activate their .gov account, which means Clinton had no legal means of electronic communications during her entire term as Secretary of State. Ponder that one. >?all of them used their private Email server for state department business, and unlike the case with Hillary with Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice plenty of them were marked "secret" or "confidential" at the time they were sent? John if you can prove that, we can net two additional bad guys, Powell and Rice. >?And yes that is breaking the rules? The rules against espionage, ja. >?and so is giving an account of a baseball game without the express written consent of Major League Baseball? Baseball rules are espionage now? News to me. >?And besides, since when is the most horrible thing that Extropians can imagine is the government not keeping its secrets tightly enough? Governments not keeping secrets tightly enough has resulted in death. This isn?t just cheating at baseball. >? Since when is that more horrible than torture for fun? These are your words John. No one has done it. ?> ??All Mrs. Clinton needed to do is obey the law, hand over the server with everything on it as soon as the subpoena was issued. >?Subpoena? What subpoena? This subpoena: http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/Kendall.Clinton%20Subpoena%20-%202015.03.04.pdf >?There was never any subpoena issued about those Emails? Good: Huffington Post will be most relieved: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/07/08/hillary-clinton-emails-_n_7756106.html Do let us post them and assure them the Kendall subpoena is a forgery. >? Hillary voluntarily? Did you mean INvoluntarily? Understandable typo. ?>? gave? Gave? She turned over the emails under legal duress. Or does legal duress not apply to her? >?55,000 Emails that were on that server to the State Department. ? John K Clark? Indeed? So why did she erase the 30,000? How do we know those 30,000 erased emails didn?t contain yoga and wedding plans, which will land her in prison for life? And if so, how do we verify the bad guys don?t already have them? And if they do, how to we confirm we are not voting our own military into the jaws of death, completely at the mercy of whoever has them? The way out of this is simple enough: Mrs. Clinton needs to offer a big sum for the whole lot of it. 100 million bucks might do it. The Clinton ?Charitable? Foundation can raise that kind of money. Then this will serve two purposes: prove she didn?t commit espionage, prove she didn?t have any shady dealings with the Clinton Foundation donations for influence, and end the risk of blackmail. That is all we are asking: show us what was deleted. Mrs. Clinton took on the burden of proof when she deleted the yoga. Had Nixon let us hear those 18 minutes, we would have seen he was only discussing innocuous matters. Not. We know what he was doing. Had Clinton just turned over everything, we would know it really was actual literal yoga and wedding plans. Not. We know what was in there. It is up to her to disprove what we already have long suspected. Erasing the email made that much harder and more expensive to do. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 3 01:04:52 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 18:04:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <003b01d1bd24$275f3bc0$761db340$@att.net> Message-ID: <005a01d1bd33$f0047220$d00d5660$@att.net> On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: Re: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 7:11 PM, spike > wrote: ?> ? It makes us appreciate that presidents cannot change libel laws. Congress and presidents working together cannot change that one ?Sure they can, they're the government they can do anything? No. Our leaders vow to uphold the constitution. As soon as they fail to do that, they are no longer the government. Chaos ensues. Our constitution is specifically written so that the government cannot just do whatever it wants. The founding fathers had already had enough of that. ?> ? The irony in all this John is that your favorite candidate commented that she would find the guy who made her cover-story video and prosecute him. ?I thought I was well informed but I never heard even the slightest hint of something like that before now. Tell me more.?..John K Clark? http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3287090/Benghazi-victim-s-father-Hillary-told-maker-film-prophet-Mohamed-arrested-causing-son-s-death.html spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 07:25:13 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 00:25:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Hillary? Message-ID: https://www.ncscooper.com/hillary-clinton-converts-to-scientology/ From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 13:55:59 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 08:55:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] education again In-Reply-To: <69073F72-9528-4BE7-B844-B8078D9322DA@alumni.virginia.edu> References: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> <69073F72-9528-4BE7-B844-B8078D9322DA@alumni.virginia.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Henry Rivera wrote: > Bill, > > I see where you are coming from, but you should check the research of > Scott Miller and Barry Duncan. They showed that assessing baseline > performance, engaging in deliberate practice, and getting feedback are what > set apart extreme performers from the (possibly similarly genetically > endowed) high performers in sports, musicianship, and other fields. Their > focus was on applying this to psychotherapists btw. This does not discount > the power of genetics. Also we are not talking about making geniuses > either. This is about developing superior performance on tasks that lend > themselves to that. I think this is probably applicable to apprenticeship > fields as referenced in the ad/post. > > -Henry > ?I saw one study years ago done in a music school with about 500 students. The only thing that separated them on performance was practice. However, it is unlikely that any of them went on to become world class musicians, who, to guess, are one in many millions . So the research you quote may very well be an excellent thing for sports or whatever, but the part of post I quoted was just dead wrong. You cannot ignore genetics. It always limits performance. I have talked with world class musicians and they say that what it takes to make one world class simply cannot be taught. And even there, the geniuses don't always put out superior performance. And it may be that what cannot be taught is not a quantitative thing, like sports. It probably gets into creativity, a qualitative thing, not, we think, affected by practice. Bottom line: you cannot eliminate genetics. My piano teacher told me that none of her piano majors could play as fast as I could. Simply genetic. You cannot teach or practice speed. bill w? > > On Jun 2, 2016, at 4:41 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > The failure of our model of largely passive learning and rote practice is > explained by Daniel Coyle in his book The Talent Code > (sent > to me by Ron G.), which upends the notion that talent is a genetic gift. It > isn't--in his words, it's grown by *deep practice*, the *ignition of > motivation* and *master coaching*. > BS - this is the same old tired old Blank Slate idea that genetics doesn't > count for anything. > > This idea should have died with Skinner, or at the very least after > reading Pinker's Blank Slate. > > I assume massive amounts of data accompanied The Talent Code? I have to > doubt it. > > I have no opinion on the rest of this post. But you don't make geniuses > with practice. > > bill w > > On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 2:24 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > >> On Wed, Jun 1, 2016 at 8:42 AM, spike wrote: >> >>> Suggestions please? >> >> >> >> http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.com/2016/06/its-time-to-ditch-4-years-of-costly.html >> >> *Short, intense directed apprenticeships that teach students how to learn >> on their own to mastery are the future of higher education.* >> *So it turns out sitting in a chair for four years doesn't deliver >> mastery in anything but the acquisition of staggering student-loan debt.* Practical >> (i.e. useful) mastery requires not just hours of practice but *directed >> deep learning via doing* of the sort you only get in an apprenticeship. >> The failure of our model of largely passive learning and rote practice is >> explained by Daniel Coyle in his book The Talent Code >> (sent >> to me by Ron G.), which upends the notion that talent is a genetic gift. It >> isn't--in his words, it's grown by *deep practice*, the *ignition of >> motivation* and *master coaching*. >> *Using these techniques, student reach levels of accomplishment in months >> that surpass those of students who spent years in hyper-costly conventional >> education programs.* The potential to radically improve our higher >> education system while reducing the cost of that education by 90% is the >> topic of my books Get a Job, Build a Real Career and Defy a Bewildering >> Economy >> >> and The Nearly Free University and the Emerging Economy: The Revolution >> in Higher Education >> >> . >> *Let's start by admitting our system of higher education is unsustainable >> and broken: a complete failure by any reasonable, objective standard.* Tuition >> has soared $1,100% while the output of the system (the economic/educational >> value of a college degree) has declined precipitously. >> A recent major study, Academically Adrift: Limited Learning on College >> Campuses >> , >> concluded that *"American higher education is characterized by limited >> or no learning for a large proportion of students."* >> 'Academically Adrift': The News Gets Worse and Worse >> (The >> Chronicle of Higher Education) >> *These two charts are the acme of unsustainability: college tuition has >> skyrocketed, along with federally funded student loan debt.* >> *The typical graduate of a short, intense directed apprenticeship says "I >> learned more in a month here than I did in four years of college."* This >> is a statement of fact, and it is the result of the methods deployed in >> structured on-the-job training. >> >> It is a fact that passively listening to a lecture does not generate the >> sort of mastery that creates economic value or the sort of deep >> understanding that is the goal of a classic liberal arts education. >> It's also a fact that rote practice also doesn't lead to mastery, and >> often kills the very passion for a subject that in more productive programs >> jumpstarts mastery. >> *Our higher educational system has failed so badly that many students are >> incapable of writing/communicating effectively.* In a world of rapidly >> changing technologies across every field and an emerging economy that >> places an ever-higher premium on collaboration and clear communication >> across multiple time zones and languages, the ability to write clearly is >> absolutely essential. >> To "graduate" students with poor writing skills is completely >> unforgivable. Yet in the current system, if a student logs the requisite >> number of credits, a diploma is duly issued, regardless of how little >> he/she actually learned. >> *Here's a six-month program that could replace four years of >> hyper-costly, ineffective university.* >> 1. Teach the students how to learn on their own, for the rest of their >> lives. This could take as little as a few hours or days. Once a student >> learns how to pursue deep learning and deep practice on their own, they >> don't need years of classrooms--they just need the guidance of someone >> experienced in the field, i.e. a structured apprenticeship. >> 2. One semester in a wide variety of on-the-job experiences. Once >> students are given real experience in a variety of fields and industries, >> it's likely some spark of ignition will occur and they'll find the >> motivation to pursue real mastery instead of a worthless credential. >> 3. Directed apprenticeships plus online lectures/workshops by the best >> lecturers viewed before or after the students' real work. The key to >> learning deeply and learning fast is to push right up against the current >> level of competence, where failure occurs and can be addressed one piece at >> a time. >> Interestingly, Coyle notes that the most successful incubators of talent >> around the world are generally in makeshift or decrepit buildings, not >> fancy new gleaming buildings of the sort that dot American college >> campuses. Surrounded by luxury, who feels any hunger to learn anything >> voraciously? >> *The entire "campus experience" should be jettisoned, not just as an >> overly expensive infrastructure but as a detriment to fast, deep learning >> that is the foundation of mastery.* >> It isn't that hard to teach students how to improve their >> writing/communications skills very quickly, and give them a taste of the >> classic liberal arts education so many people claim is the goal of $120,000 >> four-year programs that fail to generate a deep understanding of anything >> remotely leading to mastery. >> Give them a single sentence by Melville, Austin, et al. and have them >> compose a sentence that is like the original in cadence, structure and >> meaning in one minute flat. Go, go, go. Then break down each phrase and >> each component and work through each one to improve their first efforts, >> step by step. Repeat the process, always under intense time pressure. >> Then take them out into the real world to report a journalistic story by >> interviewing people, checking facts, confirming quotes from sources, >> question the received wisdom around the topic and compose the story in >> journalistic style. Once again, break down their efforts line by line in >> comparison with a professional journalists' story on the same topic. >> Then, in the second class... more doing the work at a breakneck pace, >> more being pushed beyond their current level of expertise, more corrections >> of errors and weaknesses, step by step, in a pressure-cooker of deadlines. >> I can pretty much guarantee the students in such a directed >> apprenticeship will learn more about writing in a week than they would in a >> year of conventional coursework. >> *Short, intense directed apprenticeships that teach students how to learn >> on their own to mastery are the future of higher education*. We can >> continue to squander trillions of dollars on an ineffective system until it >> finally collapses under its own weight, or we can admit the current >> contraption is unsustainable and a failure, and move on to a better, >> cheaper system. >> >> *A Radically Beneficial World: Automation, Technology and Creating Jobs >> for All >> is >> now available as an Audible audio book.* >> *My new book is #2 on Kindle short reads -> politics and social >> science: Why Our Status Quo Failed and Is Beyond Reform >> ($3.95 >> Kindle ebook, $8.95 print edition)For more, please visit the book's website >> .* >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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: From clementlawyer at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 14:08:48 2016 From: clementlawyer at gmail.com (James Clement) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 07:08:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Hillary? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Just what we need, a conservative version of the Onion... Cheers, James On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:25 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > https://www.ncscooper.com/hillary-clinton-converts-to-scientology/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 14:14:23 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 10:14:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] education again In-Reply-To: References: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> <69073F72-9528-4BE7-B844-B8078D9322DA@alumni.virginia.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:55 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Bottom line: you cannot eliminate genetics. Of course you're right, but I think you're missing the real point of the blog post which is that directed apprenticeship may be more effective than conventional education. Passive classroom education is cheap (theoretically, at least) and easy, but active education--actually doing the thing rather than listening to someone telling you how to do the thing--can accomplish a lot more learning a lot faster. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 15:33:43 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 10:33:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] education again In-Reply-To: References: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> <69073F72-9528-4BE7-B844-B8078D9322DA@alumni.virginia.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:14 AM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:55 AM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > >> Bottom line: you cannot eliminate genetics. > > > Of course you're right, but I think you're missing the real point of the > blog post which is that directed apprenticeship may be more effective than > conventional education. Passive classroom education is cheap > (theoretically, at least) and easy, but active education--actually doing > the thing rather than listening to someone telling you how to do the > thing--can accomplish a lot more learning a lot faster. > > -Dave > > ?Dave, my only comment was on the genetics thing. I think, after having been in conventional education for nearly 40 years, is that just about anything will beat it, whether you are talking about sports or history or math or typing. If I had it to do over again I would not teach undergraduates. Not in the style they expect, anyway. (In my last year I taught 101 rather conventionally because I had to, but used essay tests! Aha! What I learned!) I could not find anything in Khan's book with which I disagreed, although he is wrong about some aspects of testing. The problem is with graduate schools of education - reactionary, while at the same time applauding any new theory that comes along. When I first started teaching at a college, I wondered why my colleagues had such a poor view of the education department. I found out. Yet, to legislatures, they are the gurus. I am in favor of whatever works, and it will take hard data and a lot of it to convince me. Another problem: it's kind of a Darwinian situation out there. You have to plug your ideas. And your ideas have to be different. That is why psychology so often comes up with new theories that are just all talk and no data, or are just revamped ideas of Freud or Pavlov or some other, not given credit, of course. Psych is the worst at putting out pure unadulterated bullshit. "Neurolinguistic programming'. Remember that one? Pure BS. So as a psychologist looking at other psychologists or people of different stripes doing essentially psychology work, I have to be extra special skeptical. Because when I am, I am far more likely to be right. To give us our due, discarded theories should not count against us. In any fairly new field, the vast majority of new theories will be wrong. Look at alchemy. It is sad that real hard scientists see BS coming out of psychology when we really have such a lot to offer that isn't BS. ? ?Maybe now we are straight. Re your post above: I think this has been known for centuries. Apprenticeships, or mentoring, or call it what you will, reducing the ratio of students to teachers will be superior to large passive classes with one teacher. bill w? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 16:10:48 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:10:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 8:57 PM, spike wrote: > > >> ?>? >> ? Now it's >> ?[Treason} ? >> a capital offence? Do you think she should suffer the death penalty? > > > > ?> ? > No, that would be a bit harsh. Jeffrey Sterling got 3.5 years vacation at > Club Fed, for erasing a single email after the court demanded he turn it > over. > > ?Hillary erased no Email that the court demanded she turn over, and even if she did that would not be treason or anything close to it.? > ?> ? > She broke laws. That non-disclosure agreement she signed going in puts > the signer at legal liability. > ?Violating a ? non-disclosure agreement ?is a civil wrong not a criminal offence. You get a big fine for violating a ? non-disclosure agreement ?, you get hung for treason. ? ? > ?> ? > Stand by for FBI report. > ?I am, and I'm ?looking forward to my $10.? > > >> ?>? >> ?and she did nothing the 5 previous secretaries of state didn't do? > > > > ?> ? > False. None of the previous 5 secretaries had their own servers > > ?Well maybe it is false, all I know is that's not what the State Department concluded: http://mediamatters.org/blog/2016/03/07/state-dept-concludes-past-secretaries-of-state/209044 ? ?But to be fair Powell said he's received Christmas greetings marked ?"top secret" and I have no doubt he was telling the truth. Secrecy inflation is a real problem in government, bureaucrats figure if they don't stamp "Top Secret" on something people will figure it's not important; it's become automatic almost like saying "Hello". ?> ? > None of the predecessors diverted ALL state business into a privately > controlled unsecured server ?And Hillary didn't conduct ALL state department business on a private Email server either. > ?> ? > John if you can prove that, we can net two additional bad guys, Powell and > Rice. > ?Then I guess we're going to have a triple hanging, Powell ?,? Rice ? and Hillary. ? http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/ > >> ?>? >> ? Since when is that more horrible than torture for fun? > > > > ?> ? > These are your words John. > > ?No Spike these are Donald Trump's words not mine:? ? *Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would. In a heartbeat. I would approve more than that.? ?And if it doesn?t work, they deserve it anyway for what they do to us*?. ?And then Trump added:? ?"? *The other thing with the terrorists is you have to take out their families, when you get these terrorists, you have to take out their families. They care about their lives, don't kid yourself. When they say they don't care about their lives, you have to take out their families*" ?Spike, after fascist barbarism like that why are we still talking about Hillary ?'s stupid Emails and not about civilization descending back into the middle ages? ? > > >> ?> ? >> ?Subpoena? What subpoena? > > > > ?>? > This subpoena: > http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/Kendall.Clinton%20Subpoena%20-%202015.03.04.pdf > OK, you're right, there was a subpoena ? . It ? ? asked ? f? or all documents related to ? ? Benghazi ? and ? or Libya for 2011 and 2012 and she did so. ? ? It ? ? said nothing about giving the ?? m ? ? everything ? ? on ? the server although ? ? she ? ? voluntarily gave the State Department 55,000 additional Emails ?.? . ?> ? > Indeed? So why did she erase the 30,000? ?Because they did not involve ? Benghazi ? ?or Libya ? in 2011 or 2012 and were personal. I have personal Emails, don't you? She erased them when she knew the subpoena was coming but before she actually got it. I have well over 30,000 Emails on my computer and if I knew I was about to receive a subpoena from my political opponents because they knew I was planning to run for president in 2016 ?and were looking for any dirt they could use against me I'd erase them too. So would you.? ? ?> ? >> I thought I was well informed but I never heard even the slightest hint >> of something like that before now. Tell me more.? > > > > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3287090/Benghazi-victim-s-father-Hillary-told-maker-film-prophet-Mohamed-arrested-causing-son-s-death.html If ?that's? true it would be a real Hillary scandal not like this silly Email stuff ?. It wouldn't be ? ?as bad as Trump's repeated asserting that the libels law should be strengthened but still pretty damn bad. But is it true? All we have is a second hand account from Fox news of a paraphrase of what Hillary was supposed to have said ?,? namely "we are going to have the filmmaker arrested who was responsible for the death of my son". I must say it seems very very odd that a Secretary Of State would say to a grieving father ?something like "? we're going to ?arrest? the people who made a movie ?"? and not ?"the movie shouldn't have been made ?and we're going to ?arrest? the people who murdered your son ?"? ?.? ? Unlike the case with Hillary we have numerous recordings of Trump saying with his own pie hole that the libel laws should be strengthened, b ut if she really said that it's a huge ?black ? mark against her ?, I'd still vote for her over Trump but with less enthusiasm . ?The fact that the charge came from Fox News does not add to it's credibility.? > ?>? > How do we know those 30,000 erased emails didn?t contain yoga and wedding > plans, which will land her in prison for life? > I've erased Email ?s? ?on this very day? , how do you know ?they? ?didn't? contain information which ?would have? landed? ?me? in prison for life ?? ?I can't prove they weren't love letters to ISIS, but is that the way things will work in the Trump era, if I can't prove I'm innocent I go to prison? > ?> ? > And if so, how do we verify the bad guys don?t already have them? > ?I'm sure the bad guys already have them. I'm sure that when she sent 30,000 Email to ISIS containing the complete blueprints for a B1 bomber she'd wanted to mail them from a server with a " clintonemail.com ?" domaine name.? John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 16:24:33 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:24:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Trump, Jail, and libel law Message-ID: Just yesterday I said that if Trump becomes president he will put people in jail for saying things about him he doesn't like. Some thought I was overstating my case but today after Hillary gave a speech highlighting Trump's ignorant imbecilic and above all dangerous national security policy Trump said this: *"And remember I said I was a counter-puncher? I am. After what she said about me today and her phony speech. That was a phony speech. That was a Donald Trump hit job. I will say this. Hillary Clinton has to go to jail. She has to go to jail."* ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 16:24:59 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:24:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:10 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > ?Violating a ? > non-disclosure agreement > ?is a civil wrong not a criminal offence. You get a big fine for violating > a > ? > non-disclosure agreement > ?, you get hung for treason. ? > ? > Disclosing classified information is punishable by a fine and/or up to ten years in prison. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 But to be fair Powell said he's received Christmas greetings marked ?"top > secret" and I have no doubt he was telling the truth. Secrecy inflation is > a real problem in government, bureaucrats figure if they don't stamp "Top > Secret" on something people will figure it's not important; it's become > automatic almost like saying "Hello". > Stamping "Top Secret" on something doesn't make it Top Secret. > ?No Spike these are Donald Trump's words not mine:? > > ? > *Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would. In a heartbeat. > I would approve more than that.? ?And if it doesn?t work, they deserve it > anyway for what they do to us*?. > Yes, let's take the pathological liar at face value. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 16:29:10 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:29:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> Message-ID: Would all of you guys admit that there is no such thing as a secure server? Anywhere? In or out of government? One that has never been hacked? bill w On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:10 PM, John Clark wrote: > >> >> >> ?Violating a ? >> non-disclosure agreement >> ?is a civil wrong not a criminal offence. You get a big fine for >> violating a >> ? >> non-disclosure agreement >> ?, you get hung for treason. ? >> ? >> > > Disclosing classified information is punishable by a fine and/or up to ten > years in prison. > > https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 > > But to be fair Powell said he's received Christmas greetings marked ?"top >> secret" and I have no doubt he was telling the truth. Secrecy inflation is >> a real problem in government, bureaucrats figure if they don't stamp "Top >> Secret" on something people will figure it's not important; it's become >> automatic almost like saying "Hello". >> > > Stamping "Top Secret" on something doesn't make it Top Secret. > > >> ?No Spike these are Donald Trump's words not mine:? >> >> ? >> *Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would. In a heartbeat. >> I would approve more than that.? ?And if it doesn?t work, they deserve it >> anyway for what they do to us*?. >> > > Yes, let's take the pathological liar at face value. > > -Dave > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 16:39:47 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:39:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] vote changes and fun Message-ID: It is likely that no one in this group knows more about attitude change than me. Given? That said, attitude change (AC) of any significant degree, is a rare thing, and usually only happens when someone is given a lot of ideas or data that he has no counterargument for. In technical terms, if a person has only been exposed to one-sided persuasions, such as in one's church, then that person can be flipped fairly easily. However, if a person has been exposed not only to his own point of view but the other side as well, a two-sided communication, then he is much harder to flip. If in addition, he has been exposed to counterarguments to the other side, then he maybe be impossible even to move one little bit towards the other side, and you may be in danger of making his position even firmer where he is, or even moving him farther away from the other side. (This can go on: counterarguments to the counterarguments etc.) So - while these discussions of Trump and Hillary are interesting, I'll bet any amount that no one's position will be changed. Y'all are too smart and know too much (and, I think, may suspect much more than you know about Hillary). Fun? Yes. Persuasive? Not in a coon's age. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 16:44:49 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:44:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:29 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Would all of you guys admit that there is no such thing as a secure > server? Anywhere? In or out of government? One that has never been > hacked? > No, of course not. There are lots of secure servers and lots of servers that haven't been hacked. Servers that handle classified information aren't connected to the Internet. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 17:23:14 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:23:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> Message-ID: No, of course not. There are lots of secure servers and lots of servers that haven't been hacked. Servers that handle classified information aren't connected to the Internet. -Dave *Then how could classified information get on Hilary's server?* *bill w* On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 11:44 AM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:29 PM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Would all of you guys admit that there is no such thing as a secure >> server? Anywhere? In or out of government? One that has never been >> hacked? >> > > No, of course not. There are lots of secure servers and lots of servers > that haven't been hacked. Servers that handle classified information aren't > connected to the Internet. > > -Dave > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 17:23:08 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 18:23:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] vote changes and fun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 3 June 2016 at 17:39, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > However, if a person has been exposed not only to his own point of view but > the other side as well, a two-sided communication, then he is much harder to > flip. If in addition, he has been exposed to counterarguments to the other > side, then he maybe be impossible even to move one little bit towards the > other side, and you may be in danger of making his position even firmer > where he is, or even moving him farther away from the other side. (This can > go on: counterarguments to the counterarguments etc.) > > So - while these discussions of Trump and Hillary are interesting, I'll bet > any amount that no one's position will be changed. Y'all are too smart and > know too much (and, I think, may suspect much more than you know about > Hillary). > > Fun? Yes. Persuasive? Not in a coon's age. > > See: Backfire Effect Quote: The backfire effect occurs when, in the face of contradictory evidence, established beliefs do not change but actually get stronger. The effect has been demonstrated experimentally in psychological tests, where subjects are given data that either reinforces or goes against their existing biases - and in most cases people can be shown to increase their confidence in their prior position regardless of the evidence they were faced with. In a pessimistic sense, this makes most refutations useless. ------------ That's why politics and religion arguments are mostly a waste of time. BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 17:29:10 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:29:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] vote changes and fun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes, that's part of what I said. bill w On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:23 PM, BillK wrote: > On 3 June 2016 at 17:39, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > > However, if a person has been exposed not only to his own point of view > but > > the other side as well, a two-sided communication, then he is much > harder to > > flip. If in addition, he has been exposed to counterarguments to the > other > > side, then he maybe be impossible even to move one little bit towards the > > other side, and you may be in danger of making his position even firmer > > where he is, or even moving him farther away from the other side. (This > can > > go on: counterarguments to the counterarguments etc.) > > > > So - while these discussions of Trump and Hillary are interesting, I'll > bet > > any amount that no one's position will be changed. Y'all are too smart > and > > know too much (and, I think, may suspect much more than you know about > > Hillary). > > > > Fun? Yes. Persuasive? Not in a coon's age. > > > > > > > See: Backfire Effect > > > Quote: > The backfire effect occurs when, in the face of contradictory > evidence, established beliefs do not change but actually get stronger. > The effect has been demonstrated experimentally in psychological > tests, where subjects are given data that either reinforces or goes > against their existing biases - and in most cases people can be shown > to increase their confidence in their prior position regardless of the > evidence they were faced with. > In a pessimistic sense, this makes most refutations useless. > ------------ > > That's why politics and religion arguments are mostly a waste of time. > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 17:31:30 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 13:31:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:23 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Then how could classified information get on Hilary's server? There are a number of ways such as scanning and OCR'ing a paper document or reading a paper document and typing the contents into an email. Systems approved for classified data are not on the Internet. That's why classified information on Hillary's private server is a Big Deal. Bill, I'll defer to you in areas of psychology and education, but I've had a clearance and maintained servers for 30+ years. I know what I'm talking about. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 18:10:00 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:10:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] education again In-Reply-To: References: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> <69073F72-9528-4BE7-B844-B8078D9322DA@alumni.virginia.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 3, 2016 6:57 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: > Bottom line: you cannot eliminate genetics. My piano teacher told me that none of her piano majors could play as fast as I could. Simply genetic. You cannot teach or practice speed. Maybe not teach but you sure can practice. Speed is a mechanical thing. Genetic aptitude may help, but without the right (and a sufficient amount of) practice the speed will not materialize, and even lesser genetics might come up with tricks to get the results they were not naturally born with. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 18:39:53 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:39:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:31 PM, Dave Sill wrote: ?> ? > Systems approved for classified data are not on the Internet. > Classified data ? ? is allowed to be transmitted by the internet provided that the ? information is encrypted ? ? in a NSA approved way ? ? and there is a firewall ?on the computers involved ? that meets NSA specifications. If the Internet were not allowed the government would be ?even? ? more dysfunctional than it is. ?It's true there are a few specially dedicated networks that are independent of the internet for hyper-secret things like launch codes, but for the vast majority of secret stuff a dedicated line wouldn't be practical, there's too much information and too many nodes. ? ?> ? > That's why classified information on Hillary's private server is a Big > Deal. ?There was secret information on Hillary's server, but it was ?classified secret ?long AFTER the messages were sent. ?Your government in action. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 3 18:54:16 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:54:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> Message-ID: <012a01d1bdc9$54c64090$fe52c1b0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark ? ?>> She broke laws. That non-disclosure agreement she signed going in puts the signer at legal liability. ?>?Violating a ?non-disclosure agreement is a civil wrong not a criminal offence? John, I am assuming you are aware or could be aware, that a non-disclosure agreement signed for a security briefing is not the same thing as a non-disclosure agreement you sign when you are subcontracting to a commercial company. That NDA with a security clearance attached damn sure does have criminal liability attached to it, something they remind you of every time you log on to your secure account. On the bright side, I don?t recall them ever saying it had civil court liability if you mishandle classified info. ?>>? ?Stand by for FBI report. ?>?I am, and I'm looking forward to my $10.?.. Heh. So confident, so bold. Dashing, is this young man! ?>?And Hillary didn't conduct ALL state department business on a private Email server either? John, she didn?t even activate her secure server account. There was no legal electronic communication path to the US SecState for her entire term. Astonishing. ?> ?John if you can prove that, we can net two additional bad guys, Powell and Rice. ?>?Then I guess we're going to have a triple hanging, Powell, Rice, and Hillary? Woohooo! Excellent! We catch all three sleazebags in one investigation. Score! http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/04/politics/hillary-clinton-email-classified-colin-powell-condoleezza-rice/ > ?>? ? Since when is that more horrible than torture for fun? ?> ? These are your words John. ?>?No Spike these are Donald Trump's words not mine:? I didn?t see anything in there about fun. Did you? ?>?Spike, after fascist barbarism like that why are we still talking about Hillary's stupid Emails and not about civilization descending back into the middle ages? ? I am talking about that. This is why I favor Johnson. He is less likely to start a nuclear war than Trump or Clinton. It is the reason why I won?t vote for them. I would have myself to partially blame if I voted for whichever one wins. Don?t do it friends. Hear the footsteps. >>?Subpoena? What subpoena? ?>? This subpoena: http://benghazi.house.gov/sites/republicans.benghazi.house.gov/files/Kendall.Clinton%20Subpoena%20-%202015.03.04.pdf >?OK, you're right, there was a subpoena. It asked f?or all documents related to Benghazi and ?or Libya for 2011 and 2012 and she did so? How do we know that? We don?t. We don?t know what was on Nixon?s 18 minutes of tape either. Destroying evidence is taking on the burden of proof of one?s own innocence. It can be a very heavy burden indeed. ?>>? ? So why did she erase the 30,000? ?>?Because they did not involve ?Benghazi ?or Libya in 2011 or 2012 and were personal? We don?t know that, and we suspect it is false. When Mrs. Clinton arranged to have her own server, so that she could control that evidence, she took on a heavy burden of proof, as did Nixon when he erased that 18 minutes of audio. When people destroy evidence, they appear guilty. She appears to perhaps have done something serious, such as perhaps arranged to arm Syrian rebels, perhaps in exchange for anonymous donations to a charity, which would have led directly to? well, let?s see? ?a well-armed military-trained group becoming upset at an internet video they never actually heard of, coming to shoot up the a US Embassy? Or perhaps they were just some guys out for a walk (with guided mortars and the training to aim them.) What difference at this point does it make? Difference: if we don?t know what caused that, then we cannot fix it. If we do not know why Ambassador Stevens did not have a ventilated safe-room, then we cannot explain why he perished. Mrs. Clinton appears to have gone to extraordinary lengths to make sure we keep not knowing what caused that attack, and why Ambassador Stevens did not have the requisite safe-facilities. >?. She erased them when she knew the subpoena was coming but before she actually got it? John K Clark Why John, WHY WHY WHY did she do that? She knew what that would look like, she knew she had a bunch of people who had committed felonies by somehow getting classified info across the gap (how the hell did they do that/), doing something which damn sure is treason, people who may have acted on her orders or on her behalf. So why why why did she erase even a word of it, erase even a word of the evidence needed to exonerate her and her staff, when she KNEW where it would lead? What was in there which was worth having staffers sent to prison and all the other easily foreseeable consequences? Yoga? Wedding plans? Love notes? Think about it, John, why did Nixon and Clinton go to such extraordinary lengths? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 3 18:59:50 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 11:59:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Trump, Jail, and libel law In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <012f01d1bdca$1bfcc990$53f65cb0$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: [ExI] Trump, Jail, and libel law >?Just yesterday I said that if Trump becomes president he will put people in jail for saying things about him he doesn't like. Some thought I was overstating my case but today after Hillary gave a speech highlighting Trump's ignorant imbecilic and above all dangerous national security policy Trump said this: "And remember I said I was a counter-puncher? I am. After what she said about me today and her phony speech. That was a phony speech. That was a Donald Trump hit job. I will say this. Hillary Clinton has to go to jail. She has to go to jail." ? John K Clark? Doesn?t it make you want to hug your Constitution? Both of these yahoos; if they have any redeeming qualities at all, it is to remind Americans that we have a constitution. Presidents don?t make law. Oh what a wonderful document is the US Constitution. The founders were brilliant. So well done, so clear, so concise, so effective in limiting the damage potential of a mad president. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 19:15:19 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:15:19 -0500 Subject: [ExI] education again In-Reply-To: References: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> <69073F72-9528-4BE7-B844-B8078D9322DA@alumni.virginia.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:10 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Jun 3, 2016 6:57 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" > wrote: > > Bottom line: you cannot eliminate genetics. My piano teacher told me > that none of her piano majors could play as fast as I could. Simply > genetic. You cannot teach or practice speed. > > Maybe not teach but you sure can practice. Speed is a mechanical thing. > Genetic aptitude may help, but without the right (and a sufficient amount > of) practice the speed will not materialize, and even lesser genetics might > come up with tricks to get the results they were not naturally born with. > ?ability = genetics + environment? ? I hope I did not say anything that contradicted that. bill w? > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 3 19:11:53 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:11:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> Message-ID: <013401d1bdcb$cb0c80a0$612581e0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dave Sill ? >?Disclosing classified information is punishable by a fine and/or up to ten years in prison? For each offense, ja. In some cases, protons will begin to decay before the felon would be freed. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/798 But to be fair Powell said he's received Christmas greetings marked ?"top secret" and I have no doubt he was telling the truth. Secrecy inflation is a real problem in government, bureaucrats figure if they don't stamp "Top Secret" on something people will figure it's not important; it's become automatic almost like saying "Hello". >?Stamping "Top Secret" on something doesn't make it Top Secret? Ja there is a process for that. It requires codes that are on the document itself. This produces an odd contradiction. Mrs. Clinton told us that there was runaway over-classification in the State Department. She had the authority to declassify documents, but never did. She never declassified a single document. So why not? If there was all this crazy over-classification, why didn?t the Secretary of State just go into the system, declassify what she needed, then send that to her unsecured server? Then nooooone of this would have ever happened. Weird: the Secretary of State said there was massive over-classification but never declassified even a single document when given the authority to do so. Is not that in itself a logical contradiction? ?No Spike these are Donald Trump's words not mine:? ?Would I approve waterboarding? You bet your ass I would. In a heartbeat. I would approve more than that. ? ?And if it doesn?t work, they deserve it anyway for what they do to us?. >?Yes, let's take the pathological liar at face value. -Dave Waterboarding is still illegal, even if the president approves. If a president orders it, those are illegal orders, and the military commander or CIA agent who receives them is legally obligated to object, stand down and resign under protest. Before waterboarding can legally occur, congress must act to make it so. Dave these two are no good. Hear the footsteps. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjv2006 at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 19:27:17 2016 From: sjv2006 at gmail.com (Stephen Van Sickle) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:27:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] education again In-Reply-To: References: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> <004401d1bc11$06c11c80$14435580$@att.net> Message-ID: > > > I wonder if your 14 year old can mentor one of the similarly gifted 10 > year olds. > This was once a popular method of education: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitorial_System if for no other reason that it was extremely economical. But it also has other advantages. In my experience, I've found i never truly master material until i try to teach it to someone. And giving older students some (supervised) responsibility for the younger ones can instill positive values and help with the "maturing process" that Spike mentions. I've often thought that the worst feature of "modern" education is that everyone almost exclusively spends time in the company of others the same age. Ideally, one should spend most of their time caring for the younger to learn responsibility and in the company of the older who teach by example. With the decline of large extended families, this is getting harder to find. Schools just stunt social and emotional growth. And barely manage to teach. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 3 19:26:45 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:26:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> Message-ID: <014e01d1bdcd$de791e80$9b6b5b80$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 9:29 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump Would all of you guys admit that there is no such thing as a secure server? Anywhere? In or out of government? One that has never been hacked? bill w BillW, the State Department secure server was not hacked that we know of. The State Department unsecured server was hacked, but that is no big deal: there isn?t any sensitive info out there (legally there isn?t.) But if Bryan Pagliano somehow hacked that secure system and somehow managed to get info out of the SCIF, inquiring minds want to know how the hell he did it. That is what all this taking the fifth is all about. http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/politics/bryan-pagliano-hillary-clinton-email-server/ If he did somehow manage to get into that system, how did he get the signals out? Did he smuggle a camera in there and take photos of a display? If so, this is definitely treason. And if he did, why did he do it? On orders? Whose? Did he sneak in there in the night and somehow compromised that system or somehow managed to get info out when there is no physical connection to the outside world, where was the inspector? How did the inspector?s office miss that for so long? Who was the inspector? Was the inspector?s office somehow in on a vast conspiracy to commit espionage? How did they get enough bad guys all together in the same office to pull off something like that and keep it secret? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 3 19:29:30 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 12:29:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> Message-ID: <015301d1bdce$40c85b00$c2591100$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 10:23 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump No, of course not. There are lots of secure servers and lots of servers that haven't been hacked. Servers that handle classified information aren't connected to the Internet. -Dave Then how could classified information get on Hilary's server? bill w BillW, that is the question that so many of us want to know. I have been stumped by that since I first heard it. How was this done? Whodunnit, when, how and why. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 20:28:07 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:28:07 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: <012a01d1bdc9$54c64090$fe52c1b0$@att.net> References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> <012a01d1bdc9$54c64090$fe52c1b0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:54 PM, spike wrote: > ? Since when is that more horrible than torture for fun? > > ?> ?These are your words John. > > ?>?No Spike these are Donald Trump's words not mine:? > > > > I didn?t see anything in there about fun. Did you? > ?Y es I did. After bragging about the new innovative tortures he would dream up that we haven't used yet to get information he says " ? ? And if it doesn?t work, they deserve it anyway for what they do to us?. ? If it doesn't work, if you learn nothing from the torture because the person just doesn't know the information that you want then the only reason to torture is for fun. Spike, with a monster like that about to become the most powerful man in the world why the hell are we still talking about a bunch of stupid Emails? ? > >> ?>? >> ?Just yesterday I said that if Trump becomes president he will put >> people in jail for saying things about him he doesn't like. Some thought I >> was overstating my case but today after Hillary gave a speech highlighting >> Trump's ignorant imbecilic and above all dangerous national security >> policy Trump said this: > > *"And remember I said I was a counter-puncher? I am. After what she said > about me today and her phony speech. That was a phony speech. That was a > Donald Trump hit job. I will say this. Hillary Clinton has to go to jail. > She has to go to jail."* > > ?> ? > Doesn?t it make you want to hug your Constitution? ?Yes the Constitution is nice but remember it's just a piece of paper, a very nice piece of paper but paper nevertheless. The Constitution is only as good as the person who enforces it (the President) ?and the people who interpret it (The Supreme Court appointed by the President). I've been making the case that Hillary did nothing illegal but if Trump wins I predict she will indeed end up in prison but she won't be alone, hundreds of Trump's political opponents will get rounded up too. Trump is how fascism starts, and don't think the USA is immune from it just because it has a constitution, Trump will wipe his ass on it and the people will cheer. >?OK, you're right, there was a subpoena. It asked f?or all documents >> related to Benghazi and ?or Libya for 2011 and 2012 and she did so? > > > > ?> ? > How do we know that? > > ?We can't. If you demand I turn over to you all the documents I have on ?subject X and I give you a cubic mile of paper I can't prove that I didn't leave one sheet out. So do I go to jail? > ?> ? > When Mrs. Clinton arranged to have her own server > ? ?[...] > > ?Just like what 5 previous secretaries of ?state did. > When people destroy evidence, they appear guilty. > ?Not when you can't explain evidence or what, not when you can't even explain exactly what they're supposed to be guilty of. ? > ?> ? > perhaps arranged to arm Syrian rebels, perhaps in exchange for anonymous > donations to a charity, > > ?Perhaps, and maybe she conspired with martians to invade the Earth but you have zero evidence of that, and zero evidence those Emails were about anything immoral, much less illegal, much less TREASONABLE. And with Donald Trump wanting to torture people for fun, and threatening to throw his political opponents in prison once he gains power, and encouraging Germany, South Korea, Japan and *Saudi Arabia* and who knows who else get nuclear bombs WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT EMAILS? John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 20:46:29 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 15:46:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] education again In-Reply-To: References: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> <004401d1bc11$06c11c80$14435580$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:27 PM, Stephen Van Sickle wrote: > >> I wonder if your 14 year old can mentor one of the similarly gifted 10 >> year olds. >> > > This was once a popular method of education: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitorial_System > > if for no other reason that it was extremely economical. But it also has > other advantages. In my experience, I've found i never truly master > material until i try to teach it to someone. And giving older students > some (supervised) responsibility for the younger ones can instill positive > values and help with the "maturing process" that Spike mentions. > > I've often thought that the worst feature of "modern" education is that > everyone almost exclusively spends time in the company of others the same > age. Ideally, one should spend most of their time caring for the younger > to learn responsibility and in the company of the older who teach by > example. With the decline of large extended families, this is getting > harder to find. Schools just stunt social and emotional growth. And barely > manage to teach. > > ?What I have wondered about is the impersonal nature of watching a video, however well executed. So I have these questions, probably for Spike: When the Khan Academy videos are used in schools, what happens after the video? Is the video watched by a group which then discusses it? Or maybe the teacher gives more examples or problems? How can or do they incorporate peer mentoring into this? When my chairman approached me about buying videos for a statistics class, which I taught, I told him that they might be useful if I were ill for a substantial period of time, but otherwise I'd prefer to teach the class myself. No, I did not even consider being replaced by videos because that wasn't going to happen in the 90s and maybe not now. Perhaps I should have had him buy them to study the teaching techniques. Since the Khan Academy videos are so popular, I assume math and other teachers are watching them for tips on how to teach. But anyway you sift it, the burden of the sheer transmission of information has to be taken out of the hands of teachers. It can really be a mind-numbing experience for the teacher. Have any of you experienced something like this? You are assigned reading material, which might be a text, or several papers, given time to absorb them, and go to a class where they are discussed and the teacher is just a team leader responsible for keeping the class on track and providing expert advice. For all I know this might be standard procedure in some graduate school classes. bill w ? > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 20:56:41 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 15:56:41 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> <012a01d1bdc9$54c64090$fe52c1b0$@att.net> Message-ID: Trump is how fascism starts, and don't think the USA is immune from it just because it has a constitution, Trump will wipe his ass on it and the people will cheer. john clark Look at Europe, sinking into far right wing ideas. Does anybody dispute that this is resulting from the immigration of war refugees? Or the increasing population of Muslims? For 'Muslims' you could just write 'people not like us'. And here we are in the good ol USA reacting to the same situation, though we are not flooded with refugees. (We could take a lot more than we do.) What is behind all of this? Fear. Fear of lost jobs, fear of lost religion and religious principles, fear of different religions and races - basically fear that we will never see the 50s again. Putting up walls, stopping immigration, and more - these are far out solutions but they make people fear less. That, to me, is the Trump base. The base do not care about his ravings - fear reduction is enough. That even if elected his ideas are very likely not to be implemented is irrelevant. People want to feel better NOW. Thoughts? bill w On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 3:28 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:54 PM, spike wrote: > >> ? Since when is that more horrible than torture for fun? >> >> ?> ?These are your words John. >> >> ?>?No Spike these are Donald Trump's words not mine:? >> >> >> >> I didn?t see anything in there about fun. Did you? >> > > ?Y > es I did. After bragging about the new innovative tortures he would dream > up that we haven't used yet to get information he says " > ? ? > And if it doesn?t work, they deserve it anyway for what they do to us?. > ? If it doesn't work, if you learn nothing from the torture because the > person just doesn't know the information that you want then the only reason > to torture is for fun. > > Spike, with a monster like that about to become the most powerful man in > the world why the hell are we still talking about a bunch of stupid Emails? > ? > > > >>> ?>? >>> ?Just yesterday I said that if Trump becomes president he will put >>> people in jail for saying things about him he doesn't like. Some thought I >>> was overstating my case but today after Hillary gave a speech highlighting >>> Trump's ignorant imbecilic and above all dangerous national security >>> policy Trump said this: >> >> *"And remember I said I was a counter-puncher? I am. After what she said >> about me today and her phony speech. That was a phony speech. That was a >> Donald Trump hit job. I will say this. Hillary Clinton has to go to jail. >> She has to go to jail."* >> >> > > ?> ? >> Doesn?t it make you want to hug your Constitution? > > > ?Yes the Constitution is nice but remember it's just a piece of paper, a > very nice piece of paper but paper nevertheless. The Constitution is only > as good as the person who enforces it (the President) ?and the people who > interpret it (The Supreme Court appointed by the President). I've been > making the case that Hillary did nothing illegal but if Trump wins I > predict she will indeed end up in prison but she won't be alone, hundreds > of Trump's political opponents will get rounded up too. Trump is how > fascism starts, and don't think the USA is immune from it just because it > has a constitution, Trump will wipe his ass on it and the people will > cheer. > > > > >?OK, you're right, there was a subpoena. It asked f?or all documents >>> related to Benghazi and ?or Libya for 2011 and 2012 and she did so? >> >> >> >> ?> ? >> How do we know that? >> >> > ?We can't. If you demand I turn over to you all the documents I have on > ?subject X and I give you a cubic mile of paper I can't prove that I didn't > leave one sheet out. So do I go to jail? > > > >> ?> ? >> When Mrs. Clinton arranged to have her own server >> ? ?[...] >> >> > ?Just like what 5 previous secretaries of ?state did. > > > >> When people destroy evidence, they appear guilty. >> > > ?Not when you can't explain evidence or what, not when you can't even > explain exactly what they're supposed to be guilty of. ? > > > > >> ?> ? >> perhaps arranged to arm Syrian rebels, perhaps in exchange for anonymous >> donations to a charity, >> >> > ?Perhaps, and maybe she conspired with martians to invade the Earth but > you have zero evidence of that, and zero evidence those Emails were about > anything immoral, much less illegal, much less TREASONABLE. And with Donald > Trump wanting to torture people for fun, and threatening to throw his > political opponents in prison once he gains power, and encouraging Germany, > South Korea, Japan and *Saudi Arabia* and who knows who else get nuclear > bombs WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT EMAILS? > > John K Clark > > > > > > >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjv2006 at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 21:03:46 2016 From: sjv2006 at gmail.com (Stephen Van Sickle) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:03:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] education again In-Reply-To: References: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> <004401d1bc11$06c11c80$14435580$@att.net> Message-ID: This is interesting, Spike: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saber_(sectoral_currency) using a blockchian approach for something like this...makes my head hurt. On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 12:27 PM, Stephen Van Sickle wrote: > >> I wonder if your 14 year old can mentor one of the similarly gifted 10 >> year olds. >> > > This was once a popular method of education: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monitorial_System > > if for no other reason that it was extremely economical. But it also has > other advantages. In my experience, I've found i never truly master > material until i try to teach it to someone. And giving older students > some (supervised) responsibility for the younger ones can instill positive > values and help with the "maturing process" that Spike mentions. > > I've often thought that the worst feature of "modern" education is that > everyone almost exclusively spends time in the company of others the same > age. Ideally, one should spend most of their time caring for the younger > to learn responsibility and in the company of the older who teach by > example. With the decline of large extended families, this is getting > harder to find. Schools just stunt social and emotional growth. And barely > manage to teach. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 21:42:59 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:42:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Tabby's star Message-ID: I can't think of when I was last motivated to spread around a request for money, it's not often. This is an exception. https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/608159144/the-most-mysterious-star-in-the-galaxy/posts/1593023?ref=backer_project_update As Tabetha Boyajian says, this is the most mysterious star we know about. Even if it is not alien megastructures blocking as much as 22% of the light, whatever is going on there is sure to be fascinating. BTW, the lack of IR flux (Where's the flux?) makes aliens more likely. It seems really hard to contrive a natural explanation for radiating the IR (from the absorbed light) away from our line of sight where we will shortly have the James Webb space telescope which does that. Plus some kinds of proposed thermal power satellites radiate at right angles to the local ecliptic. Feel free to pass this around. Also recommend you watch Dr. Boyajian's TED talk. Keith Henson https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L5_Society From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 3 21:40:29 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 14:40:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> <012a01d1bdc9$54c64090$fe52c1b0$@att.net> Message-ID: <006201d1bde0$8cfd9cd0$a6f8d670$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark >?Spike, with a monster like that about to become the most powerful man in the world why the hell are we still talking about a bunch of stupid Emails? Ja. Note I haven?t defended Trump against any of this. I know he is a bad guy. We have two bad guys here. The US sails betwixt Scylla and Charybdis, and we have nukes. These are grim times indeed. ? >>Doesn?t it make you want to hug your Constitution? ?>?Yes the Constitution is nice but remember it's just a piece of paper, a very nice piece of paper but paper nevertheless? It is the law of the land, yes. No one can become president without swearing to uphold that piece of paper. It defines freedoms that the president, the legislature and the court cannot countermand, such as freedom of speech. Rights are not permissions. The government?s power is not absolute. This is most fortunate, for absolute power corrupts absolutely. There are no known exceptions. >? I've been making the case that Hillary did nothing illegal? Ja, and I have repeatedly disputed this. You did read the recent IG report, ja? >?but if Trump wins I predict she will indeed end up in prison but she won't be alone, hundreds of Trump's political opponents will get rounded up too? I fear this is true as well. Hear the footsteps. Don?t vote for these two. >? Trump is how fascism starts? And Clinton. Trump, Clinton, Nixon, Hitler, Mao, Stalin. These are all kindred spirits. >? and don't think the USA is immune from it just because it has a constitution, Trump will wipe his ass on it and the people will cheer? I won?t cheer. Clinton and Trump are threats to our constitution. If there is any silver lining to any of this abhorrent situation, the next president will likely take office severely crippled and go in as the most hated president in American history. Congress will do nothing for either of them. It will reduce the power of the presidency back to the level it was intended to carry. ?> ? How do we know that? ?We can't. If you demand I turn over to you all the documents I have on ?subject X and I give you a cubic mile of paper I can't prove that I didn't leave one sheet out. So do I go to jail? So why did not Clinton realize when she was participating in erasing the evidence that this would happen? Answer: she didn?t. She already knew that whatever was in those yoga routines was far worse than a mere obstruction of justice and treason charge. So what was it? ?> ?>?When Mrs. Clinton arranged to have her own server ? ?[...] ?>?Just like what 5 previous secretaries of ?state did. Woohooo! We net five bad guys in one dragnet! Oh wait, the others didn?t have a private server and didn?t somehow divert all State Department business to it. Perhaps you haven?t read the Inspector General?s report? >>?When people destroy evidence, they appear guilty. ?>?Not when you can't explain evidence or what, not when you can't even explain exactly what they're supposed to be guilty of? John, sheesh, where have you been? We watches as an sitting Secretary of State set up a family ?charity? knowing that enables all kinds of secret dealings. That is a conflict of interest to even enable it. We know that the State Department did business with entities known or suspected to be contributing to the ?charity.? How hard was that to figure out what is going on? How hard was it to figure out what was going on when Mrs. Clinton exploded under questioning about what possible motive the Benghazi attackers might have had? Could it possibly be someone was arming Syrian rebels in exchange for anonymous contributions through Canada to? I don?t know? an orphanage or a soup kitchen? something? When the obvious was pointed out to the Clintons that having a family controlled ?charity? while acting as Secretary of State would carry the appearance of what plenty of us already confidently suspect that was used for, why did they do it anyway? ? Sheesh how hard is it to follow that money trail? ?> ?>?perhaps arranged to arm Syrian rebels, perhaps in exchange for anonymous donations to a charity, ?>?Perhaps, and maybe she conspired with martians to invade the Earth but you have zero evidence of that, and zero evidence those Emails were about anything immoral, much less illegal, much less TREASONABLE? Indeed? So why the big hurry to erase them, knowing what that looks like? Why did Nixon erase those 18 minutes of audio, knowing that very well could be the end of road? Where is the evidence that 18 minutes had nothing on there worth having to resign in disgrace? Why is Clinton not held to the same standards as Nixon was? >? WHY ARE WE STILL TALKING ABOUT EMAILS John K Clark Ah, the old bullhorn argument. If the investigation is sufficiently annoying, get a bullhorn and shout ?MOVE ALONG CITIZENS! THERE IS NOTHING TO SEE HERE!? Yet somehow, that indicates there might be something to see here. Could it all be a vast Sanders-wing conspiracy? Just as in that distasteful Watergate affair 40 years ago, I am seeing more and more stories every day, and they are making it into the more mainstream news outlets, including the BBC. The Brits are talking about US politics now. Whooda thunk? I remember folding newspapers when I was 13 yrs old, and getting a sense over the months leading up to August 1974 that there was a snowball rolling. I am definitely getting that sense again. We are still talking about emails because there are still so many unanswered and most mysterious questions, such as how that information got across the gap. And is that mechanism, whatever it is, still there? And if so, who dunnit, when, where and how? And who has that information Mrs. Clinton was prepared to face prison to get rid of? And where can we buy the evidence that it was all yoga and wedding plans (the literal variety?) Why is it that Hilliary?s aid is taking the fifth? What did he do wrong? Why is Hilliary?s lawyers advising the inner circle to not talk? If it was just yoga and weddings, what are they afraid of? If the Hillary wants all this to go away, just tell us how this was all done, who did it, what was erased, what was the criterion for erasure, who participated in the erasure, why was it erased, and how did this all happen to start with? Why didn?t they pick out the State Department business and just keep the rest of it in the home server? Why was it necessary to risk legal jeopardy to get rid of it? John, Clinton has the burden of proof here. Let?s see it. I am finding reason to hope. Perhaps sunshine really is the best disinfectant. Twenty years ago, all this would have been easily swept under the rug. Now, it can?t be. We win. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 3 22:00:01 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 15:00:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] education again In-Reply-To: References: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> <004401d1bc11$06c11c80$14435580$@att.net> Message-ID: <006701d1bde3$47e79440$d7b6bcc0$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace ? ?>?What I have wondered about is the impersonal nature of watching a video, however well executed. So I have these questions, probably for Spike: >?When the Khan Academy videos are used in schools, what happens after the video? The student works on exercises and demonstrates mastery of that topic. >?Is the video watched by a group which then discusses it? No I wouldn?t think so. The students are all at different places in their courses. IN my son?s school, all the students working on KA have individual computers with headphones. >? Or maybe the teacher gives more examples or problems? Khan Academy does a pretty good job of finding the balance between over-practice and under-practice. If they get several in a row right, they don?t need more. On they go. >? Since the Khan Academy videos are so popular, I assume math and other teachers are watching them for tips on how to teach? bill w Hmmm, I hope so. But the techniques enabled by KA isn?t necessarily a transferrable format. Those videos are all set up as 10 minute or less segments. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 22:58:14 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 17:58:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] education again In-Reply-To: <006701d1bde3$47e79440$d7b6bcc0$@att.net> References: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> <004401d1bc11$06c11c80$14435580$@att.net> <006701d1bde3$47e79440$d7b6bcc0$@att.net> Message-ID: Hmmm, I hope so. But the techniques enabled by KA isn?t necessarily a transferrable format. Those videos are all set up as 10 minute or less segments. spike I guess what I am asking is this: is there anything about Khan that suggests that it might be superior in a setting where peer mentoring is done? OK - ten minutes and most watchers have mastered that concept. Then turn on another one? How fast did your kid go through the videos? Did he ever replay one? Or this: would 5 Khan videos equal one 50 minute regular class session? I think I will enroll and take a class or two just to see. Recommendations? BTW, my time is yours and I'll share any of my so-called knowledge with you like I did in the beginning. bill w On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 5:00 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *>?* *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *?* > > > > ?>?What I have wondered about is the impersonal nature of watching a > video, however well executed. So I have these questions, probably for > Spike: > > > > >?When the Khan Academy videos are used in schools, what happens after > the video? > > > > The student works on exercises and demonstrates mastery of that topic. > > > > >?Is the video watched by a group which then discusses it? > > > > No I wouldn?t think so. The students are all at different places in their > courses. IN my son?s school, all the students working on KA have > individual computers with headphones. > > > > >? Or maybe the teacher gives more examples or problems? > > > > Khan Academy does a pretty good job of finding the balance between > over-practice and under-practice. If they get several in a row right, they > don?t need more. On they go. > > > > > > >? Since the Khan Academy videos are so popular, I assume math and other > teachers are watching them for tips on how to teach? bill w > > > > > > Hmmm, I hope so. But the techniques enabled by KA isn?t necessarily a > transferrable format. Those videos are all set up as 10 minute or less > segments. > > > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Fri Jun 3 23:14:05 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 19:14:05 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: <006201d1bde0$8cfd9cd0$a6f8d670$@att.net> References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> <012a01d1bdc9$54c64090$fe52c1b0$@att.net> <006201d1bde0$8cfd9cd0$a6f8d670$@att.net> Message-ID: I honestly don't understand how you think Hillary is more fascist than Trump unless you're talking about the inexorable march of a dystopian home and a neoliberal warmongering foreign policy--which proceeds without respect to candidates, unless a third party candidate made a HUGE showing which maybe should have already happened. That's just how the system works. Trump is amazingly worse than status quo regarding fascism which is really quite something. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 3 23:49:55 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:49:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] education again In-Reply-To: References: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> <004401d1bc11$06c11c80$14435580$@att.net> <006701d1bde3$47e79440$d7b6bcc0$@att.net> Message-ID: <003201d1bdf2$a1ea7ed0$e5bf7c70$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace ? >? is there anything about Khan that suggests that it might be superior in a setting where peer mentoring is done? Hmmm, I don?t see where peer mentoring would enter into that kind of effort. KA is really better set up for home study or after-school than in-school use. >?OK - ten minutes and most watchers have mastered that concept? Ten minutes of lecture, followed by practice on the concept for perhaps thrice that same time period. >? Then turn on another one? Ja. Self paced. >?How fast did your kid go through the videos? Well, I recorded everything, so I have a total of 4320 minutes of video, 15030 minutes of working on skills and 1460 minutes working on challenges (writing software.) This was over a span of 1004 days, so an average of about 4 to 5 minutes of video per day, 15 minutes of skills, with intermittent projects. I would estimate about 8 minutes per video is more typical and a skill takes about 12-16 minutes or so to master a skill. So a reasonable approximation is about 500 videos and for skills, I have the exact number available: 1107 skills mastered. This was accomplished in less than 3 years (1004 days calendar, 480 days with at least some KA action of any kind (he has other training material besides this (such as a robotics training course.))) This is an example of skills at the KA Calc1 level: Skill Level Questions Finding limits numerically Mastered One-sided limits from graphs Mastered Two-sided limits from graphs Mastered Two-sided limits using algebra Mastered Two-sided limits using advanced algebra Mastered Continuity Mastered Limits at infinity where f(x) is unbounded Mastered Limits at infinity where x is unbounded Practiced Squeeze theorem >? Did he ever replay one? Ja, plenty of times on the statistics and probability course. That one was tougher than the calculus so far, not so much the math itself but the reasoning behind it. That one is tough for kids, perhaps easier for adults and those of us who have played poker or pondered these concepts. >?Or this: would 5 Khan videos equal one 50 minute regular class session? I am guessing a typical class session would give time for about two videos and about three skills if they hustle. The videos and skills don?t necessarily correspond one to one, and you don?t need to view the videos to do the skills. Plenty of it can be figured out by working on it. >?I think I will enroll and take a class or two just to see. Recommendations? For a grown-up, try that statistics and probability course. It does not require a lot of math, no calculus, some table-lookup, some calculator stuff, plenty of reasoning. Take your time, draw diagrams. Don?t worry if you need to go back and review. BTW, my time is yours and I'll share any of my so-called knowledge with you like I did in the beginning. bill w Cool thanks BillW. I would like another pair of eyes on this, just to see if others find it as marvelous as I do. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 3 23:58:13 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 16:58:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... Message-ID: <004101d1bdf3$caa5ef70$5ff1ce50$@att.net> A highly respected ExI-chat participant has suggested that US politics is outside the scope of the ExI list, and I agree. Being one of the poster-children for hammering on that, I couldn?t justify suggesting we tone that down. But with that request, I feel justified in saying it might be time to watch and wait. And suffer. An pray to evolution this isn?t really every bit as bad as it looks? Counter suggestions please? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 00:18:04 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 17:18:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... In-Reply-To: References: <004101d1bdf3$caa5ef70$5ff1ce50$@att.net> Message-ID: On Jun 3, 2016 5:14 PM, "spike" wrote: > Counter suggestions please? Perhaps, in the spirit of extropianism being in part about what one can actually do to change things, limit discussion to effective methods of change? Such as how to hack the media to give the Libertarian candidate enough exposure to have a good chance of winning, or how the members of this list could hack votes on a meaningful scale? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 01:08:43 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 21:08:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: <013401d1bdcb$cb0c80a0$612581e0$@att.net> References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> <013401d1bdcb$cb0c80a0$612581e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 3:11 PM, spike wrote: > ?> ? > Waterboarding is still illegal, even if the president approves. > > Waterboarding is no more illegal today than it ever was, it's just ? ? that ? ? President Obama ? ? as chief law enforcement officer and Commander in Chief ordered it stopped in January 2009 ? ? as soon as he came into office, but President Trump could ?order? it back in January 2017 along ?with ? something "*a hell of a lot worse than waterboarding. Even if it doesn?t work they deserve it anyway*". ?I don't know what the "something" Trump's perverted little mind was imagining (Crucifixion? Burning at the stake? D rawing and quartering ???) and I hope I never find out. Trump says he will also order the military to murder the wives and children of suspected terrorists ?, but the head of the CIA, the ?head of the NSA and the ? Joint Chiefs of Staff ? at the Pentagon all say they would refuse to obey such an order from their president. ?That would mean a mutiny between the military and civil authority and, although I never thought I'd say this, I'd be on the side of the military in the resulting coup. Hillary gave a speech yesterday, it was the same one Trump wants to put her in prison for, she said: ?" I t matters when he ? [Trump]? says he?ll order our military to murder the families of suspected terrorists. During the raid to kill bin Laden, when every second counted, our SEALs took the time to move the women and children in the compound to safety. Donald Trump may not get it, but that?s what honor looks like. ?" She may end up in one of Trump's gulags because of it but ? Hillary ? should be proud of that speech. John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 01:37:27 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 20:37:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] talent + genetics Message-ID: Most studies in an academic setting - no sports. Slate review of GRit, by Angela Duckworth http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/cover_story/2016/05/angela_duckworth_says_grit_is_the_key_to_success_in_work_and_life_is_this.html#rt Hmmm. Some correlation between grit and willingness to practice? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 04:24:31 2016 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 06:24:31 +0200 Subject: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... In-Reply-To: References: <004101d1bdf3$caa5ef70$5ff1ce50$@att.net> Message-ID: US politics has been discussed on this list, often with heated tones, for as long as I can remember. I see no problem with that, politics _IS_ important. Adrian, there's no way to "give the Libertarian candidate enough exposure to have a good chance of winning." Not in 2016. Perhaps in 2036. We should work on that. G. On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 2:18 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Jun 3, 2016 5:14 PM, "spike" wrote: >> Counter suggestions please? > > Perhaps, in the spirit of extropianism being in part about what one can > actually do to change things, limit discussion to effective methods of > change? Such as how to hack the media to give the Libertarian candidate > enough exposure to have a good chance of winning, or how the members of this > list could hack votes on a meaningful scale? > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 04:49:19 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 00:49:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... In-Reply-To: References: <004101d1bdf3$caa5ef70$5ff1ce50$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:24 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: ?> ? > there's no way to "give the Libertarian candidate enough > exposure to have a good chance of winning." Not in 2016. Perhaps in > 2036. ?Perhaps as soon as 2020. If Donald loses the Republican party will be severely weakened leaving room for a libertarian in 2020, and if he wins the Republican party ? will be as dead as a doornail by then, of course the Libertarian party as well ?as you and me and everyone we know could very well be dead too, but at least we won't have to worry about politics. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Jun 4 04:56:13 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 3 Jun 2016 21:56:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... In-Reply-To: References: <004101d1bdf3$caa5ef70$5ff1ce50$@att.net> Message-ID: <008801d1be1d$6bd25310$4376f930$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Giulio Prisco Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 9:25 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... US politics has been discussed on this list, often with heated tones, for as long as I can remember. I see no problem with that, politics _IS_ important. Adrian, there's no way to "give the Libertarian candidate enough exposure to have a good chance of winning." Not in 2016. Perhaps in 2036. We should work on that. G It isn't in our hands now, it is decided by the mainstream press. If Clinton loses the FBI primary, and the race becomes Sanders vs Trump vs Johnson, they might agree to having three-way debates on prime time, and they cover it with top of their splash pages, think how sane and clean Johnson would appear. We could find a nice snappy short slogan analogous to Feel the Bern and Make America Great Again. I would propose either "Hear the Footsteps" or "Hurl the Hammer." spike From giulio at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 05:15:11 2016 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 07:15:11 +0200 Subject: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... In-Reply-To: <008801d1be1d$6bd25310$4376f930$@att.net> References: <004101d1bdf3$caa5ef70$5ff1ce50$@att.net> <008801d1be1d$6bd25310$4376f930$@att.net> Message-ID: Soon The John! ;-) On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 6:56 AM, spike wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf > Of Giulio Prisco > Sent: Friday, June 03, 2016 9:25 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... > > US politics has been discussed on this list, often with heated tones, for as > long as I can remember. I see no problem with that, politics _IS_ important. > > Adrian, there's no way to "give the Libertarian candidate enough exposure to > have a good chance of winning." Not in 2016. Perhaps in 2036. We should work > on that. > > G > > > It isn't in our hands now, it is decided by the mainstream press. > > If Clinton loses the FBI primary, and the race becomes Sanders vs Trump vs > Johnson, they might agree to having three-way debates on prime time, and > they cover it with top of their splash pages, think how sane and clean > Johnson would appear. We could find a nice snappy short slogan analogous to > Feel the Bern and Make America Great Again. I would propose either "Hear > the Footsteps" or "Hurl the Hammer." > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From anders at aleph.se Sat Jun 4 07:10:42 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 09:10:42 +0200 Subject: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... In-Reply-To: References: <004101d1bdf3$caa5ef70$5ff1ce50$@att.net> Message-ID: <0813a8a1-5c8c-6a28-e6aa-3109bbb6145c@aleph.se> On 2016-06-04 02:18, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > On Jun 3, 2016 5:14 PM, "spike" > wrote: > > Counter suggestions please? > > Perhaps, in the spirit of extropianism being in part about what one > can actually do to change things, limit discussion to effective > methods of change? > That makes sense. The current hammering has been a rather strong disincentive for me to participate: it crowds out extropian themes. -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Jun 4 12:35:04 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 05:35:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... In-Reply-To: <0813a8a1-5c8c-6a28-e6aa-3109bbb6145c@aleph.se> References: <004101d1bdf3$caa5ef70$5ff1ce50$@att.net> <0813a8a1-5c8c-6a28-e6aa-3109bbb6145c@aleph.se> Message-ID: <00cc01d1be5d$860add70$92209850$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders >>.Perhaps, in the spirit of extropianism being in part about what one can actually do to change things, limit discussion to effective methods of change? >.That makes sense. The current hammering has been a rather strong disincentive for me to participate: it crowds out extropian themes. -- Dr Anders Sandberg I can scarcely imagine what it must look like to outsiders who can only look on with dismay. A country with all those nukes going into what looks like internal chaos. Chaos and nukes are such a bad combination, oy. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 13:25:15 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 09:25:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... In-Reply-To: <0813a8a1-5c8c-6a28-e6aa-3109bbb6145c@aleph.se> References: <004101d1bdf3$caa5ef70$5ff1ce50$@att.net> <0813a8a1-5c8c-6a28-e6aa-3109bbb6145c@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Anders wrote: > That makes sense. The current hammering has been a rather strong > disincentive for me to participate: it crowds out extropian themes. > > Well, the only reason we can talk about H+ is because of biological and civil stability. In the absence of that, we might better spend our time discussing how to dose iodine or clean a gun (sorry I know the g-word is touchy here. Both g-words actually.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Jun 4 13:58:44 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 06:58:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... In-Reply-To: References: <004101d1bdf3$caa5ef70$5ff1ce50$@att.net> <0813a8a1-5c8c-6a28-e6aa-3109bbb6145c@aleph.se> Message-ID: <010401d1be69$36097cd0$a21c7670$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Will Steinberg Sent: Saturday, June 04, 2016 6:25 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Anders > wrote: That makes sense. The current hammering has been a rather strong disincentive for me to participate: it crowds out extropian themes. >?Well, the only reason we can talk about H+ is because of biological and civil stability. In the absence of that, we might better spend our time discussing how to dose iodine or clean a gun (sorry I know the g-word is touchy here. Both g-words actually.) The g-word is always touchy, but last several times it has come up here, people have treated it with the requisite care and respect. The current moderator considers it fair game. We saw yesterday the comment that the US government can do whatever it wants. I disagree. US government must follow the Constitution. Without that amendment, we wouldn?t have the other nine. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Jun 4 14:31:46 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 07:31:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] old time pugilistic memories Message-ID: <000f01d1be6d$d375f210$7a61d630$@att.net> Fun story for a Saturday morning. We read that a former heavyweight champion Ali (Cassius Clay in the old days) perished yesterday. In 1970 when I was the age my son is now, they were having a big match for the heavyweight boxing championship between Clay and Joe Frazier. In those days, boxing was a big deal. So they tried to get a former heavyweight boxing champion to contribute to the commentary. Sonny Liston and Floyd Patterson had both perished (one was a doper we heard, the other was in a plane crash as I think I recall.) They couldn't find Ingemar Johansson but they found Floyd Patterson, who was only about mid-30s at that time. How-ahd Co-sell had an interview with Patterson on the phone. He sounded drunk to me, but afterwards plenty of people had to wonder if the sport had perhaps contributed to his condition. They had a hard time finding a former heavyweight boxing champion who could hold a sustained intelligent conversation. Now we know more about the cumulative effects of multiple concussions. The popularity of boxing faded, to the point where in the late 1970s, you couldn't do varsity high school boxing (my school didn't even have a team.) Golden Gloves league was gone from campus. The high school no longer had a boxing ring, no boxing coach, only a few mats and a locker of mostly unused gloves and headgear. It feels to me like football is now where boxing was in about 1970. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 14:48:01 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 10:48:01 -0400 Subject: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... In-Reply-To: <010401d1be69$36097cd0$a21c7670$@att.net> References: <004101d1bdf3$caa5ef70$5ff1ce50$@att.net> <0813a8a1-5c8c-6a28-e6aa-3109bbb6145c@aleph.se> <010401d1be69$36097cd0$a21c7670$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:58 AM, spike wrote: > ...US government must follow the Constitution. > By those who the constituents consider the government, in all matters that can be publicly scrutinized. There are positions related to this public conception of the government which we do not know exist, filled by mysterious people. And anyone, in any office, can perform unconstitutional acts--there's no physical barrier against that. They're just axiomatically illegal. But if nobody finds out, if they never get caught, are they illegal? And say they do get caught--you can't undo the act, just prosecute it. There is absolutely no "must" relating the US government and the Constitution. There are honestly very few 'musts' in existence. The statement would be something closer to: "Known government figures, in acts of policy disclosed to the public, face legal action if they do not adhere to the Constitution, with various routes provided along the legal process through which said figures might attempt to avoid prosecution " I guarantee you that there are shadowy people within the government have have done, are currently doing, and will do unconstitutional things. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 15:17:53 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 11:17:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... In-Reply-To: <0813a8a1-5c8c-6a28-e6aa-3109bbb6145c@aleph.se> References: <004101d1bdf3$caa5ef70$5ff1ce50$@att.net> <0813a8a1-5c8c-6a28-e6aa-3109bbb6145c@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Anders wrote: ?>> ? >> Perhaps, in the spirit of extropianism being in part about what one can >> actually do to change things, limit discussion to effective methods of >> change? > > > ?> ? > That makes sense. The current hammering has been a rather strong > disincentive for me to participate: it crowds out extropian themes. > ? I've been on this list continuously since 1993 and from day one existential themes ? have been considered an appropriate topic for discussion , but before we need to ?solve the problem of the sun evolving into a red giant the human race ?needs? to survive ?for ? the next 4 years, and the events that occur in the next 5 months will have a dramatic effect on ?the probability of that occurring . A fascist, a ignorant thin skinned hot tempered and above all stupid fascist ?,? is about to receive the nuclear launch codes of the most powerful military on the planet ?; and now would be a good time to tone ?the discussion down? ?? I've seen plenty of politicians that I've disagreed with, that I've hated, that I've had contempt for, but I've never seen one that has flat out terrified me as much as Donald has. John K Clark > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 15:21:59 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 10:21:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] old time pugilistic memories In-Reply-To: <000f01d1be6d$d375f210$7a61d630$@att.net> References: <000f01d1be6d$d375f210$7a61d630$@att.net> Message-ID: It feels to me like football is now where boxing was in about 1970. spike *Ali had what used to called encephalopathy of pugilists; disguised in his case as Parkinson's. He was a great athlete, no doubt, but what got him his fame was a thick skull and please don't take that as a racial comment. He just absorbed too many hits to the head without going down or out.* *But love for this sport will never die. Have you seen the ads for pay per view barefisted fighting, in a cage? It makes me sick.* *As for football, as one ex Green Bay Packer put it, they'll have to put skirts on the quarterbacks. Oddly, you don' t see major head injuries in rugby, where they don't have any protection at all. They play smart. The super strong football helmets seem to invite hard hits, using the head as a weapon - now illegal, but still having produced hundreds of future cases of "Parkinson's", including the ones doing the hitting as well as the ones getting hit. The trouble is, you can't make a helmet that stops the brain from smashing around in the skull when hit.* * No, I don't watch it now and have not for years preferring tennis and golf - individual sports.* bill w On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:31 AM, spike wrote: > > > Fun story for a Saturday morning. > > > > We read that a former heavyweight champion Ali (Cassius Clay in the old > days) perished yesterday. In 1970 when I was the age my son is now, they > were having a big match for the heavyweight boxing championship between > Clay and Joe Frazier. In those days, boxing was a big deal. So they tried > to get a former heavyweight boxing champion to contribute to the > commentary. Sonny Liston and Floyd Patterson had both perished (one was a > doper we heard, the other was in a plane crash as I think I recall.) They > couldn?t find Ingemar Johansson but they found Floyd Patterson, who was > only about mid-30s at that time. > > > > How-ahd Co-sell had an interview with Patterson on the phone. He sounded > drunk to me, but afterwards plenty of people had to wonder if the sport had > perhaps contributed to his condition. They had a hard time finding a > former heavyweight boxing champion who could hold a sustained intelligent > conversation. Now we know more about the cumulative effects of multiple > concussions. > > > > The popularity of boxing faded, to the point where in the late 1970s, you > couldn?t do varsity high school boxing (my school didn?t even have a > team.) Golden Gloves league was gone from campus. The high school no > longer had a boxing ring, no boxing coach, only a few mats and a locker of > mostly unused gloves and headgear. > > > > It feels to me like football is now where boxing was in about 1970. > > > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 15:25:42 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 10:25:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... In-Reply-To: References: <004101d1bdf3$caa5ef70$5ff1ce50$@att.net> <0813a8a1-5c8c-6a28-e6aa-3109bbb6145c@aleph.se> Message-ID: I've seen plenty of politicians that I've disagreed with, that I've hated, that I've had contempt for, but I've never seen one that has flat out terrified me as much as Donald has. John K Clark I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect that what really terrifies you is that he has such a large following, not so much the person he is. That's what's so upsetting to me. Or maybe just plain disgusting. bill w (my last political comment) On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 10:17 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 3:10 AM, Anders wrote: > > ?>> ? >>> Perhaps, in the spirit of extropianism being in part about what one can >>> actually do to change things, limit discussion to effective methods of >>> change? >> >> >> ?> ? >> That makes sense. The current hammering has been a rather strong >> disincentive for me to participate: it crowds out extropian themes. >> > > ? > I've been on this list continuously since 1993 and from day one > existential themes > ? have been considered an appropriate topic for discussion > , but before we need to > ?solve the problem of > the sun evolving into a red giant the human race > ?needs? > to survive > ?for ? > the next 4 years, and the events that occur in the next 5 months will have > a dramatic effect on > ?the probability of that occurring > . A fascist, a ignorant thin skinned hot tempered and above all stupid > fascist > ?,? > is about to receive the nuclear launch codes of the most powerful military > on the planet > ?; > and now would be a good time to tone > ?the discussion down? > ?? > > I've seen plenty of politicians that I've disagreed with, that I've hated, > that I've had contempt for, but I've never seen one that has flat out > terrified me as much as Donald has. > > John K Clark > > > > >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 15:47:03 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 16:47:03 +0100 Subject: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... In-Reply-To: References: <004101d1bdf3$caa5ef70$5ff1ce50$@att.net> <0813a8a1-5c8c-6a28-e6aa-3109bbb6145c@aleph.se> Message-ID: On 4 June 2016 at 16:25, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I suspect that what really > terrifies you is that he has such a large following, not so much the person > he is. That's what's so upsetting to me. Or maybe just plain disgusting. > And the reason Trump has such a large following is......??? Much of the US population is suffering greatly under the old system and have no hope that anything will improve under the old system in Washington. On the contrary, they expect the system to make life worse for themselves and continue to enrich the financiers. They had 'Hope and Change' with Obama and got screwed even more. So now they are setting out to destroy the old system. And if voting still doesn't work, I fear the US is headed for severe civil disruption. BillK From spike66 at att.net Sat Jun 4 15:35:26 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 08:35:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... In-Reply-To: References: <004101d1bdf3$caa5ef70$5ff1ce50$@att.net> <0813a8a1-5c8c-6a28-e6aa-3109bbb6145c@aleph.se> <010401d1be69$36097cd0$a21c7670$@att.net> Message-ID: <004f01d1be76$b8a51520$29ef3f60$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of Will Steinberg Subject: Re: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:58 AM, spike > wrote: >> ...US government must follow the Constitution. >?By those who the constituents consider the government, in all matters that can be publicly scrutinized. At the same time the government inner circle is struggling to get more privacy, we are getting better at figuring out the power of the Freedom of Information Act (blessed be those who managed to get that passed.) >?There is absolutely no "must" relating the US government and the Constitution? Ja, the US Constitution is designed to be a limit to Federal government power. Every US administration tries to find ways around those limits. >?I guarantee you that there are shadowy people within the government have have done, are currently doing, and will do unconstitutional things? I am filled with hope that we have found ways to catch more of them. This latest go-around may have netted three and possibly four former Secretaries of State. We are catching the bastards now! Cue the Scoobydoo gang: ??and I would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn?t been for you meddling KIDS!? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 16:00:39 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 17:00:39 +0100 Subject: [ExI] old time pugilistic memories In-Reply-To: <000f01d1be6d$d375f210$7a61d630$@att.net> References: <000f01d1be6d$d375f210$7a61d630$@att.net> Message-ID: On 4 June 2016 at 15:31, spike wrote: > How-ahd Co-sell had an interview with Patterson on the phone. He sounded > drunk to me, but afterwards plenty of people had to wonder if the sport had > perhaps contributed to his condition. They had a hard time finding a former > heavyweight boxing champion who could hold a sustained intelligent > conversation. Now we know more about the cumulative effects of multiple > concussions. > At one time I had a work colleague who was a really big man. At university he had fought as an amateur heavyweight boxer. His comment, which I have never forgotten, is that ordinary folk have no conception of what it is like to receive a punch from a heavyweight boxer. One punch would put an ordinary mortal in hospital with severe injuries. So it is not remarkable than many boxers are permanently damaged. BillK From spike66 at att.net Sat Jun 4 16:06:10 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 09:06:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... In-Reply-To: <004f01d1be76$b8a51520$29ef3f60$@att.net> References: <004101d1bdf3$caa5ef70$5ff1ce50$@att.net> <0813a8a1-5c8c-6a28-e6aa-3109bbb6145c@aleph.se> <010401d1be69$36097cd0$a21c7670$@att.net> <004f01d1be76$b8a51520$29ef3f60$@att.net> Message-ID: <007301d1be7b$03a561c0$0af02540$@att.net> On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 9:58 AM, spike > wrote: >? I am filled with hope that we have found ways to catch more of them. This latest go-around may have netted three and possibly four former Secretaries of State. We are catching the bastards now! Cue the Scoobydoo gang: ??and I would have gotten away with it too, if it hadn?t been for you meddling KIDS!? spike Eeesh, I might have spoken too soon. I have been reading the 25 May State Department IG report: https://oig.state.gov/system/files/esp-16-03.pdf It exonerates Albright and Rice specifically, and John Kerry is complying with the law. So we are down to two suspects now, Powell and Clinton only. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 16:07:48 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 12:07:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Trump, Jail, and libel law In-Reply-To: <012f01d1bdca$1bfcc990$53f65cb0$@att.net> References: <012f01d1bdca$1bfcc990$53f65cb0$@att.net> Message-ID: ?Donald loves the second amendment but he doesn't give a crap about the first. The Washington Post is one of the most respected newspapers in the USA, it broke the Watergate scandal. The Post said some things about Donald that he didn't like so he publicly vowed to use the full might of the US government to take revenge on the newspaper as soon as he got into power: ?"*?I* *f I become president, oh do they have problems. They?re going to have such problems*.? ?And libertarians like this guy? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 16:11:10 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 12:11:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... In-Reply-To: <004f01d1be76$b8a51520$29ef3f60$@att.net> References: <004101d1bdf3$caa5ef70$5ff1ce50$@att.net> <0813a8a1-5c8c-6a28-e6aa-3109bbb6145c@aleph.se> <010401d1be69$36097cd0$a21c7670$@att.net> <004f01d1be76$b8a51520$29ef3f60$@att.net> Message-ID: Spike, the juiciest stuff will never be FOIA-able, and the shadiest people will never have their titles or persons revealed to the public. That's my strong opinion. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Jun 4 16:39:13 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 09:39:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... In-Reply-To: References: <004101d1bdf3$caa5ef70$5ff1ce50$@att.net> <0813a8a1-5c8c-6a28-e6aa-3109bbb6145c@aleph.se> <010401d1be69$36097cd0$a21c7670$@att.net> <004f01d1be76$b8a51520$29ef3f60$@att.net> Message-ID: <00c501d1be7f$a15d37e0$e417a7a0$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of Will Steinberg Subject: Re: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... >?Spike, the juiciest stuff will never be FOIA-able, and the shadiest people will never have their titles or persons revealed to the public. That's my strong opinion. Will, recall that passage in Orwell?s Nineteen Eight-Four where the telescreens (those watching/listening/broadcasting devices that tell the proles what they think (Orwell?s brilliant semi-satirical take on mainstream media)) and constantly watch for conspiracies against Oceana. The inner circle members are allowed to turn off their telescreens for reasonable periods of time (such as 18 minutes) if necessary. The outer circle may not. See third paragraph, chapter 1, Nineteen Eighty-Four. Orwell foresaw so much, but didn?t have anything in there about masses of proles hacking into the telescreen network. He didn?t foresee that the official communications network is useless for totalitarian dictators, because everything there is archived and can theoretically be accessed by inspectors and government watchdogs. In order to use that network for such purposes as yoga and wedding plans, an inner circle member must first figure out a way to neutralize the office of Inspector General, not that this has ever happened. Oh, wait? http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2015/03/25/friendly-reminder-there-was-no-inspector-general-at-state-when-hillary-was-there-n1976105 Will, if you haven?t read Orwell?s Nineteen Eighty-Four, for evolution?s sake stop whatever you are doing and read it now, cover to cover please. It won?t even cost you anything: http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks01/0100021.txt Orwell?s Ministry of Truth?s slogans: WAR IS PEACE FREEDOM IS SLAVERY IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH Those three slogans could be used for the current three remaining candidates, Clinton, Sanders and Trump respectively. Were Bill Clinton running today, his slogan could be IS IS IS Will, Orwell saw this coming. Read it my son, read it now, read it all, you?re welcome. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 17:34:35 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 12:34:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] old time pugilistic memories In-Reply-To: References: <000f01d1be6d$d375f210$7a61d630$@att.net> Message-ID: At one time I had a work colleague who was a really big man. At university he had fought as an amateur heavyweight boxer. His comment, which I have never forgotten, is that ordinary folk have no conception of what it is like to receive a punch from a heavyweight boxer. One punch would put an ordinary mortal in hospital with severe injuries. So it is not remarkable than many boxers are permanently damaged. I read of a story of an old boxer, Jack Dempsey. He is said to have held his fist a foot from a bull's head, punched the bull and the bull went down. bill w On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 11:00 AM, BillK wrote: > On 4 June 2016 at 15:31, spike wrote: > > > How-ahd Co-sell had an interview with Patterson on the phone. He sounded > > drunk to me, but afterwards plenty of people had to wonder if the sport > had > > perhaps contributed to his condition. They had a hard time finding a > former > > heavyweight boxing champion who could hold a sustained intelligent > > conversation. Now we know more about the cumulative effects of multiple > > concussions. > > > > > At one time I had a work colleague who was a really big man. At > university he had fought as an amateur heavyweight boxer. His comment, > which I have never forgotten, is that ordinary folk have no conception > of what it is like to receive a punch from a heavyweight boxer. One > punch would put an ordinary mortal in hospital with severe injuries. > So it is not remarkable than many boxers are permanently damaged. > > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 17:49:00 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 12:49:00 -0500 Subject: [ExI] education again In-Reply-To: <003201d1bdf2$a1ea7ed0$e5bf7c70$@att.net> References: <001d01d1bc03$09e6a7d0$1db3f770$@att.net> <004401d1bc11$06c11c80$14435580$@att.net> <006701d1bde3$47e79440$d7b6bcc0$@att.net> <003201d1bdf2$a1ea7ed0$e5bf7c70$@att.net> Message-ID: Ja, plenty of times on the statistics and probability course. That one was tougher than the calculus so far, not so much the math itself but the reasoning behind it. That one is tough for kids, perhaps easier for adults and those of us who have played poker or pondered these concepts. spike I taught statistics and probability to undergraduates, and the latter is much harder, even though it really comes down to counting. I read one study where medical doctors were given the facts: rate of incidence in the population, size of false positive errors and so forth about the likelihood of getting a disease. They all missed by miles. Conditional probability is really tough. Remember the three door problem, like that TV show? Ph. D. mathemeticians blew it. Marilyn Vos Savant got it. Long ago I lost an exgirlfriend to suicide. She tested positive for AIDS, but it was the first test. She very likely did not have it and was poorly advised by physicians, which is one reason I am extremely skeptical of them now (plus losing a father and a mother to their errors). I could likely use a refresher course but will try things I have no background for (no, too old for calculus and other math) or are not Khan's strength, like history or something. I wish Khan was active when I was. I have no use for math now. bill w On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 6:49 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *?* > > > > >? is there anything about Khan that suggests that it might be superior > in a setting where peer mentoring is done? > > > > Hmmm, I don?t see where peer mentoring would enter into that kind of > effort. KA is really better set up for home study or after-school than > in-school use. > > > > >?OK - ten minutes and most watchers have mastered that concept? > > > > Ten minutes of lecture, followed by practice on the concept for perhaps > thrice that same time period. > > > > >? Then turn on another one? > > > > Ja. Self paced. > > > > >?How fast did your kid go through the videos? > > > > Well, I recorded everything, so I have a total of 4320 minutes of video, > 15030 minutes of working on skills and 1460 minutes working on challenges > (writing software.) This was over a span of 1004 days, so an average of > about 4 to 5 minutes of video per day, 15 minutes of skills, with > intermittent projects. > > > > I would estimate about 8 minutes per video is more typical and a skill > takes about 12-16 minutes or so to master a skill. So a reasonable > approximation is about 500 videos and for skills, I have the exact number > available: 1107 skills mastered. This was accomplished in less than 3 > years (1004 days calendar, 480 days with at least some KA action of any > kind (he has other training material besides this (such as a robotics > training course.))) > > > > This is an example of skills at the KA Calc1 level: > > > > Skill Level Questions > > Finding limits numerically > Mastered > > One-sided limits from graphs Mastered > > Two-sided limits from graphs Mastered > > Two-sided limits using algebra Mastered > > Two-sided limits using advanced algebra Mastered > > Continuity > Mastered > > Limits at infinity where f(x) is unbounded Mastered > > Limits at infinity where x is unbounded Practiced > > Squeeze theorem > > > > > > >? Did he ever replay one? > > > > Ja, plenty of times on the statistics and probability course. That one > was tougher than the calculus so far, not so much the math itself but the > reasoning behind it. That one is tough for kids, perhaps easier for adults > and those of us who have played poker or pondered these concepts. > > > > > > >?Or this: would 5 Khan videos equal one 50 minute regular class session? > > > > I am guessing a typical class session would give time for about two videos > and about three skills if they hustle. The videos and skills don?t > necessarily correspond one to one, and you don?t need to view the videos to > do the skills. Plenty of it can be figured out by working on it. > > > > >?I think I will enroll and take a class or two just to see. > Recommendations? > > > > For a grown-up, try that statistics and probability course. It does not > require a lot of math, no calculus, some table-lookup, some calculator > stuff, plenty of reasoning. Take your time, draw diagrams. Don?t worry if > you need to go back and review. > > > > BTW, my time is yours and I'll share any of my so-called knowledge with > you like I did in the beginning. bill w > > > > Cool thanks BillW. I would like another pair of eyes on this, just to see > if others find it as marvelous as I do. > > > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hibbert at mydruthers.com Sat Jun 4 18:02:33 2016 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 11:02:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] old time pugilistic memories In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <24cf15ba-febb-36e1-b7bd-94030cbe92dd@mydruthers.com> On 6/4/16 8:48 AM, extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org wrote: > It feels to me like football is now where boxing was in about 1970. Except old ex-NFLers are a dime a dozen. I'll bet one of the main car dealerships in your area is named for or owned by an ex-football player. And how many of the people you know who played high school or college football shows more-than-normal degradation for their age. There are certainly a few players who show a lot of damage, but it's not like old pugilists. So the damage isn't nearly as apparent. I think the anti-football posse has a real uphill fight. Chris -- I think that, for babies, every day is first love in Paris. Every wobbly step is skydiving, every game of hide and seek is Einstein in 1905.--Alison Gopnik (http://edge.org/q2005/q05_9.html#gopnik) Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com http://mydruthers.com From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 19:39:10 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 12:39:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Meta level was tone down Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 8:48 AM, BillK wrote: > And the reason Trump has such a large following is......??? Completely understandable in terms of US post WW II history and evolved human psychological mechanisms. > Much of the US population is suffering greatly under the old system In absolute terms or relative to poor countries the low end of the US population hardly suffers at all. But as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Cialdini said (quoting someone else) it's relative to what you are used to. Animals generally respond relatively to changes and humans are not an exception. > and have no hope that anything will improve That's the biggest part of the problem. Humans evolved to be sensitive to future conditions. Improving situations, such as we have seen in the last few decades in China lead to a relatively happy and easy to govern population. > under the old system in Washington. The source of the problems are only partly located in Washington. But rational responses can't be expected of a population under stress. >On the contrary, they expect the system to make life worse > for themselves and continue to enrich the financiers. They had 'Hope > and Change' with Obama and got screwed even more. So now they are > setting out to destroy the old system. I doubt there is that much reasoning behind the discontent. In any case, it's not obvious that the government *can* do anything substantial about the underlying problems. It's far from obvious that people in the government even understand the problems. Heck, most of the readers of this list don't either. > And if voting still doesn't > work, There might be things a government could do to help deal with the underlying problems, particularly power satellites to deal with energy cost and helping women with fertility control. In spite of my efforts and those of many others, the power satellite project is not widely known yet. Lt. Col Garretson and Dr. Paul Jaffe made a start with a presentation at the White House April 20 which included a 3 minute video I partly financed. > I fear the US is headed for severe civil disruption. It's possible. Consider Syria, or for that matter Venezuela. Keith From spike66 at att.net Sat Jun 4 20:53:53 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 13:53:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Trump, Jail, and libel law In-Reply-To: References: <012f01d1bdca$1bfcc990$53f65cb0$@att.net> Message-ID: <000e01d1bea3$34c69030$9e53b090$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark ?"?If I become president, oh do they have problems. They?re going to have such problems.? ?And libertarians like this guy? John K Clark? No, libertarians nominated Johnson. Trump and Clinton reminds us every day to be thankful that presidents don?t make law. This will be very important in the next administration, for the next president will go in so distrusted and disliked, congress will do nothing for him or her. Then if he or she attempts to overstep, congress will be right there with impeachment proceedings forthwith. The part that worries me is that nuke business. A sitting president could theoretically fire the Secretary of Defense, swear in her daughter, pull the trigger. I have been thinking of short snappy slogans, preferably three words. For Johnson, I don?t really like ?Others Might Nuke? but perhaps it will do. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Sat Jun 4 18:11:49 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 20:11:49 +0200 Subject: [ExI] request to tone down politics, was: RE: Wise... In-Reply-To: <00cc01d1be5d$860add70$92209850$@att.net> References: <004101d1bdf3$caa5ef70$5ff1ce50$@att.net> <0813a8a1-5c8c-6a28-e6aa-3109bbb6145c@aleph.se> <00cc01d1be5d$860add70$92209850$@att.net> Message-ID: On 2016-06-04 14:35, spike wrote: > > I can scarcely imagine what it must look like to outsiders who can > only look on with dismay. A country with all those nukes going into > what looks like internal chaos. Yup. Does not look good. Of course, over in the UK we have the brexit nonsense to deal with. But that only reveals stupidity in the ruling class, not active maliciousness. Still, trying to steer towards extropian themes: the way of handling disasters is to (1) avoid them happening, (2) make actions during the event to mitigate damage, and (3) have good recovery options. It might be interesting to analyse the problem of political systems going into headspins this way. -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Jun 4 22:03:35 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 17:03:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] political disaster was: request to tone down politics Message-ID: Still, trying to steer towards extropian themes: the way of handling disasters is to (1) avoid them happening, (2) make actions during the event to mitigate damage, and (3) have good recovery options. It might be interesting to analyse the problem of political systems going into headspins this way. anders Russia has been dysfunctional for nearly 100 years. Surely they have tried to tweak the system many times, to no avail. Why don't they change? Why don't Cuba and North Korea, seeing as how these countries are in permanent disaster? Is it just that they are ruled by strongmen who control the military? There is a time to give up on a theory, political or otherwise. Yet Marxism seems to hang around like a stubborn wart. To quote John: I don't get it. (social psych study: take a quote from Marx: "From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs" and take it on the street and ask people if they agree with it. If you tell them that Marx said it you will get strong disagreement. If you tell it it's by Jefferson, you get strong agreement. Similar results when you give people a copy of the Declaration of Independence and tell them Marx wrote it. Sad several ways.) bill w On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Anders wrote: > On 2016-06-04 14:35, spike wrote: > > > I can scarcely imagine what it must look like to outsiders who can only > look on with dismay. A country with all those nukes going into what looks > like internal chaos. > > > > > Yup. Does not look good. Of course, over in the UK we have the brexit > nonsense to deal with. But that only reveals stupidity in the ruling class, > not active maliciousness. > > Still, trying to steer towards extropian themes: the way of handling > disasters is to (1) avoid them happening, (2) make actions during the event > to mitigate damage, and (3) have good recovery options. It might be > interesting to analyse the problem of political systems going into > headspins this way. > > > > -- > Dr Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Oxford University > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Jun 4 22:34:54 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 15:34:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] political disaster was: request to tone down politics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004e01d1beb1$51971640$f4c542c0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace >?take a quote from Marx: "From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs" My take on Marxism: "From each according to his ability and to each according to his needs, up to each to decide which is which.? This is like communism in a way, but with as many as seven billion nations. Can be fewer. As in communism, some nations work together. But it must be voluntary for all. Minimize coercion, maximize utility. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 01:31:34 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 4 Jun 2016 21:31:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Trump, Jail, and libel law In-Reply-To: <000e01d1bea3$34c69030$9e53b090$@att.net> References: <012f01d1bdca$1bfcc990$53f65cb0$@att.net> <000e01d1bea3$34c69030$9e53b090$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 4:53 PM, spike wrote: ?> ? > Trump and Clinton reminds us every day to be thankful that presidents > don?t make law. > > I think you're being far too optimistic.Trump has already made it clear he doesn't understand that a president isn't a dictator, and who's going to tell him he's wrong? Congress? Republicans already control both house ?s? . ?True? they don't see ? m ? to like him much but ? that will change. Its amazing how a chance to get a little more power can ?alter? the perspective ? of ? a? politician ?. When Donald seemed unlikely to get the nomination Rick Perry said "Trump is a ? cancer on conservatism" but now ? that ? he's got the nomination ? all wrapped up ? Perry enthusiastically endorse ?s? him and even indicates he'd like to be Donald's Vice president and run on a Cancer/Perry ticket. I ?doubt? Perry is alone in his hypocrisy, if Donald wins the general election very few in congress will refuse to get on the bandwagon and tell him can't do what he wants to do. And those brave souls who ?do ? speak out will probably end up in ?prison.? What about the supreme court, will they stop him? There are already 4 republicans on the court and there is a vacancy. Can you imagine the sort of creature President Trump will appoint? Can you imagine?! And Stephen Breyer ? is 77 , Anthony Kennedy is 80 and ? Ruth Bader Ginsburg ? is 83. It won't take long for Donald to pack the court with his toadies and then we won't be calling him Mr. President anymore, he will be addressed as Generalissimo or perhaps Dear Leader. ?> ? > The part that worries me is that nuke business. > > ?Yep.? > ?> ? > A sitting president could theoretically fire the Secretary of Defense, > swear in her daughter, pull the trigger. ?Yep. Of course a president would have to be crazy to do that but..... Nobody knows why but every once in a while highly civilized countries go crazy, it happened in Germany it happened in Japan and it happened in Italy; it looks like it might be the turn of the USA. But I don't want to end on such a depressing note, at least we're learning more about the Fermi Paradox. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 09:10:34 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 05:10:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] vote changes and fun In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 1:23 PM, BillK wrote: > > > > See: Backfire Effect > > > Quote: > The backfire effect occurs when, in the face of contradictory > evidence, established beliefs do not change but actually get stronger. > The effect has been demonstrated experimentally in psychological > tests, where subjects are given data that either reinforces or goes > against their existing biases - and in most cases people can be shown > to increase their confidence in their prior position regardless of the > evidence they were faced with. > In a pessimistic sense, this makes most refutations useless. > ------------ > > That's why politics and religion arguments are mostly a waste of time. > ### Politics and religion are about power and identity, not about truth, so obviously factual claims are of limited utility. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 09:14:44 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 05:14:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Trump, Jail, and libel law In-Reply-To: References: <012f01d1bdca$1bfcc990$53f65cb0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 4, 2016 at 12:07 PM, John Clark wrote: > ?Donald loves the second amendment but he doesn't give a crap about the > first. The Washington Post is one of the most respected newspapers in the > USA, it broke the Watergate scandal. The Post said some things about Donald > that he didn't like so he publicly vowed to use the full might of the US > government to take revenge on the newspaper as soon as he got into power: > > ?"*?I* > *f I become president, oh do they have problems. They?re going to have > such problems*.? > > ?And libertarians like this guy? > ### Well, a forceful response to evil lying enemies is entirely within the libertarian remit. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 09:21:57 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 05:21:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> <013401d1bdcb$cb0c80a0$612581e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 9:08 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > Hillary gave a speech yesterday, it was the same one Trump wants to put > her in prison for, she said: > > ?" > I > t matters when he > ? [Trump]? > says he?ll order our military to murder the families of suspected > terrorists. During the raid to kill bin Laden, when every second counted, > our SEALs took the time to move the women and children in the compound to > safety. Donald Trump may not get it, but that?s what honor looks like. > ?" > > She may end up in one of Trump's gulags because of it but ? > Hillary > ? should be proud of that speech. > ### She must have felt very honorable when they dragged ambassador Steven's body out of the compound and took pictures, and when she lied to the families face-to-face. John, it's a fallacy to think that supporting evil is a good way of opposing evil. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Sun Jun 5 06:45:01 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 08:45:01 +0200 Subject: [ExI] political disaster was: request to tone down politics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 2016-06-05 00:03, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Still, trying to steer towards extropian themes: the way of handling > disasters is to (1) avoid them happening, (2) make actions during the > event to mitigate damage, and (3) have good recovery options. It might > be interesting to analyse the problem of political systems going into > headspins this way. anders > > Russia has been dysfunctional for nearly 100 years. Surely they have > tried to tweak the system many times, to no avail. Why don't they > change? Why don't Cuba and North Korea, seeing as how these countries > are in permanent disaster? Is it just that they are ruled by > strongmen who control the military? Blaming political ideology does not work as an explanation, since they were not exactly in a great state before shifting to socialism (Russia a collapsing monarchy, Cuba an authoritarian dictatorship, North Korea occupied by the Japanese and Soviet Union). Plus, other basket cases like Haiti has never been socialist. Now, I know political science has a fair bit of knowledge and theory about why dysfunction tends to run deep. One clear issue is that institutions tend to be weak and untrustworthy, the incentives for rulers and ruled are such that corruption and distrust (or even outright theft) becomes rational. Some failure modes involve tribalist politics, making joint government hard. To an outsider it is obvious that the US should update its constitution. But I guess that is not likely, is it? -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 13:30:43 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 14:30:43 +0100 Subject: [ExI] political disaster was: request to tone down politics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5 June 2016 at 07:45, Anders wrote: > Blaming political ideology does not work as an explanation, since they were > not exactly in a great state before shifting to socialism (Russia a > collapsing monarchy, Cuba an authoritarian dictatorship, North Korea > occupied by the Japanese and Soviet Union). Plus, other basket cases like > Haiti has never been socialist. > > Now, I know political science has a fair bit of knowledge and theory about > why dysfunction tends to run deep. One clear issue is that institutions tend > to be weak and untrustworthy, the incentives for rulers and ruled are such > that corruption and distrust (or even outright theft) becomes rational. Some > failure modes involve tribalist politics, making joint government hard. > > To an outsider it is obvious that the US should update its constitution. But > I guess that is not likely, is it? > To another outsider, :) the US Constitution seems to be used in much the same way as the Bible. Ignore the bits you don't like, or interpret it in a convoluted way to make it say what you want it to say. You can also claim that procedure X is not mentioned in the Constitution, so must be allowable. If all that fails, still do what you want to do and hope you don't get caught out. Owning the legal system helps as well. BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 14:42:39 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 09:42:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] political disaster was: request to tone down politics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: To an outsider it is obvious that the US should update its constitution. But I guess that is not likely, is it? anders Oh? What do you suggest? The electoral college for one, I suppose. But that's rather esoteric for most people. bill w On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Anders wrote: > On 2016-06-05 00:03, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Still, trying to steer towards extropian themes: the way of handling > disasters is to (1) avoid them happening, (2) make actions during the event > to mitigate damage, and (3) have good recovery options. It might be > interesting to analyse the problem of political systems going into > headspins this way. anders > > Russia has been dysfunctional for nearly 100 years. Surely they have > tried to tweak the system many times, to no avail. Why don't they change? > Why don't Cuba and North Korea, seeing as how these countries are in > permanent disaster? Is it just that they are ruled by strongmen who > control the military? > > > Blaming political ideology does not work as an explanation, since they > were not exactly in a great state before shifting to socialism (Russia a > collapsing monarchy, Cuba an authoritarian dictatorship, North Korea > occupied by the Japanese and Soviet Union). Plus, other basket cases like > Haiti has never been socialist. > > Now, I know political science has a fair bit of knowledge and theory about > why dysfunction tends to run deep. One clear issue is that institutions > tend to be weak and untrustworthy, the incentives for rulers and ruled are > such that corruption and distrust (or even outright theft) becomes > rational. Some failure modes involve tribalist politics, making joint > government hard. > > To an outsider it is obvious that the US should update its constitution. > But I guess that is not likely, is it? > > -- > Dr Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Oxford University > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 14:46:26 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 10:46:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Trump, Jail, and libel law In-Reply-To: References: <012f01d1bdca$1bfcc990$53f65cb0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 5:14 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > > ? >> ?>> ? >> Donald loves the second amendment but he doesn't give a crap about the >> first. The Washington Post is one of the most respected newspapers in the >> USA, it broke the Watergate scandal. The Post said some things about Donald >> that he didn't like so he publicly vowed to use the full might of the US >> government to take revenge on the newspaper as soon as he got into power: >> >> ?"*?I* >> *f I become president, oh do they have problems. They?re going to have >> such problems*.? >> >> ?And libertarians like this guy? >> > > ?> ? > ### Well, a forceful response to evil lying enemies is entirely within the > libertarian remit. > ?So the answer is yes, libertarians like this guy. And that means I've been wrong all these years and I'm ?not a libertarian after all because unlike Donald I'm not a big fan of censorship or torture or murdering children because you don't like their father or putting your political opponent in prison because she said things about you in a campaign speech you don't like. And far more important than any libertarian philosophy, at least in my humble opinion, I'm not a big fan of a madman getting his hands on the nuclear launch codes of the USA. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 15:00:24 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 11:00:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> <013401d1bdcb$cb0c80a0$612581e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 5:21 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: ?>> ? >> Hillary gave a speech yesterday, it was the same one Trump wants to put >> her in prison for, she said: >> >> ?" >> I >> t matters when he >> ? [Trump]? >> says he?ll order our military to murder the families of suspected >> terrorists. During the raid to kill bin Laden, when every second counted, >> our SEALs took the time to move the women and children in the compound to >> safety. Donald Trump may not get it, but that?s what honor looks like. >> ?" >> >> She may end up in one of Trump's gulags because of it but ? >> Hillary >> ? should be proud of that speech. >> > > ?> ? > ### She must have felt very honorable when they dragged ambassador > Steven's body out of the compound and took pictures, and when she lied to > the families face-to-face. > ?The power of Fox news and ? hillbilly ? talk radio is amazing, ?it can take a mundane Email server incident and use it to turn Hillary into a murderer and some sort of ludacris James Bond villain and the Clinton Foundation ?into an international crime organization like ? SPECTRE ?. And otherwise intelligent people fall for it and believe these fantasies are more important than the all too real existential threat poised by Donald Trump. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gjlewis37 at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 15:40:06 2016 From: gjlewis37 at gmail.com (Gregory Lewis) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 16:40:06 +0100 Subject: [ExI] political disaster was: request to tone down politics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <031701d1bf40$8a16b090$9e4411b0$@gmail.com> (Apologies if I recapitulate things well-known to cognoscenti - by the history of this email list, I'm a recent entrant) Is there also a 'damping' consideration here? In effect constitutions and other mechanisms lock in the preferences of the past against the future (e.g. super-majoritarian requirements for amendment, etc.) This obviously hinders correcting the errors of the past, but may be a useful barrier against errors of the future. Britain has all manner of anachronisms which don't survive contemporary scrutiny, but perhaps the general inertia of the political system has been helpful to ensure a few hundred years of peaceful and stable government. Even if you're pretty whiggish (which I'm guessing Extropians generally are.) about social progress over time, you might still want to have some institutional conservatism as we approximate better and better the 'right system', as newer innovations are more likely to be error. I wonder if some mathsy political scientists have tried to quantify these effects? Enjoy life, Gregory From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sent: 05 June 2016 07:45 To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [ExI] political disaster was: request to tone down politics On 2016-06-05 00:03, William Flynn Wallace wrote: Still, trying to steer towards extropian themes: the way of handling disasters is to (1) avoid them happening, (2) make actions during the event to mitigate damage, and (3) have good recovery options. It might be interesting to analyse the problem of political systems going into headspins this way. anders Russia has been dysfunctional for nearly 100 years. Surely they have tried to tweak the system many times, to no avail. Why don't they change? Why don't Cuba and North Korea, seeing as how these countries are in permanent disaster? Is it just that they are ruled by strongmen who control the military? Blaming political ideology does not work as an explanation, since they were not exactly in a great state before shifting to socialism (Russia a collapsing monarchy, Cuba an authoritarian dictatorship, North Korea occupied by the Japanese and Soviet Union). Plus, other basket cases like Haiti has never been socialist. Now, I know political science has a fair bit of knowledge and theory about why dysfunction tends to run deep. One clear issue is that institutions tend to be weak and untrustworthy, the incentives for rulers and ruled are such that corruption and distrust (or even outright theft) becomes rational. Some failure modes involve tribalist politics, making joint government hard. To an outsider it is obvious that the US should update its constitution. But I guess that is not likely, is it? -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 16:14:16 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 12:14:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] political disaster was: request to tone down politics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:42 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?> >> ?>? >> ?To an outsider it is obvious that the US should update its constitution. >> But I guess that is not likely, is it? > > > ?> ? > Oh? What do you suggest? The electoral college for one, I suppose. > Yes. ?I see no reason why a voter in ? Wyoming ? should have 66.7 times more power over deciding who gets to be a senator than a voter in California, ?or why the Wyoming guy should have 18.3 times more power in choosing the next president than the California guy. It's nuts. Voters should be allowed to vote for more than one person and whoever gets the most votes wins. That way libertarians could vote for Johnson ?AND Trump and I could vote for Johnson AND Hillary. ?And it would eliminate the need for runoff elections. It's far more controversial and it's never going to happen but I'd like to see freedom of religion removed from the constitution because it's redundant. As long as you've got freedom of speech and freedom of assembly you've got freedom of religion automatically; but when you specifically mention one particular thing you can do with freedom of speech and freedom of assembly ? it's used to justify situations where if I do something for religious reasons then it's legal but if I do ?the exact same thing for non-religious reasons then it's illegal. And that is also nuts. John K Clark > But that's rather esoteric for most people. > > bill w > > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 1:45 AM, Anders wrote: > >> On 2016-06-05 00:03, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> >> Still, trying to steer towards extropian themes: the way of handling >> disasters is to (1) avoid them happening, (2) make actions during the event >> to mitigate damage, and (3) have good recovery options. It might be >> interesting to analyse the problem of political systems going into >> headspins this way. anders >> >> Russia has been dysfunctional for nearly 100 years. Surely they have >> tried to tweak the system many times, to no avail. Why don't they change? >> Why don't Cuba and North Korea, seeing as how these countries are in >> permanent disaster? Is it just that they are ruled by strongmen who >> control the military? >> >> >> Blaming political ideology does not work as an explanation, since they >> were not exactly in a great state before shifting to socialism (Russia a >> collapsing monarchy, Cuba an authoritarian dictatorship, North Korea >> occupied by the Japanese and Soviet Union). Plus, other basket cases like >> Haiti has never been socialist. >> >> Now, I know political science has a fair bit of knowledge and theory >> about why dysfunction tends to run deep. One clear issue is that >> institutions tend to be weak and untrustworthy, the incentives for rulers >> and ruled are such that corruption and distrust (or even outright theft) >> becomes rational. Some failure modes involve tribalist politics, making >> joint government hard. >> >> To an outsider it is obvious that the US should update its constitution. >> But I guess that is not likely, is it? >> >> -- >> Dr Anders Sandberg >> Future of Humanity Institute >> Oxford Martin School >> Oxford University >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Jun 5 16:45:40 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 09:45:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] political disaster... Message-ID: <01fe01d1bf49$b24b6b60$16e24220$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark ?>>?>?To an outsider it is obvious that the US should update its constitution. But I guess that is not likely, is it? ?>>? ?Oh? What do you suggest? The electoral college for one, I suppose. >?Yes. ?I see no reason why a voter in ?Wyoming should have 66.7 times more power over deciding who gets to be a senator than a voter in California, ?or why the Wyoming guy should have 18.3 times more power in choosing the next president than the California guy. ? John K Clark The electoral college protects the power and relevance of state governments. The Constitution was set up to enable states to set up competing governments, to achieve optimal solutions by competing with each other under the mandate of open borders between them. That whole system was absolutely brilliant, for competition breeds excellence. So keep the scope of the Federal government limited, and require the heavy lifting to be done by states. The constitution was designed to have a lot of inertia. There are mechanisms in place to change it, as it has been 17 times after the Bill of Rights made it into the bedrock foundation of US government. But it takes strong collective will to carry out a constitutional amendment. The electoral college introduces all manner of weirdness, but it is good weirdness. It helps protect (to some extent) against ballot cheating. This is particularly relevant when we realize that after all that has happened, some states still maintain some form of intentionally non-auditable machine-based voting. The EC protects state governments. The relevance of state governments will become far greater in the foreseeable future, for they will be called upon to knit together a social safety net when the Federal level net rips apart. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 17:59:17 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 10:59:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Love in 200 Years: a lost classic? Message-ID: http://publish.lib.umd.edu/scifi/article/view/278/41 Jesse Walker called my attention to this essay. Anyhow, have yet to read to the book. Anyhow, looks like more books for my fiction pile. :) -- Regards, Dan My latest Kindle book: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 18:09:24 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 11:09:24 -0700 Subject: [ExI] political disaster Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 9:14 AM, John Clark wrote: > Yes. I see no reason why a voter in > Wyoming should have 66.7 times more power over deciding who gets to > be a senator than a voter in California, or why the Wyoming guy should > have 18.3 times more power in choosing the next president than the > California guy. It's nuts. To me, it's nutty that anyone anywhere should have political power over anyone else -- that this is acceptable at all. It's also nutty that some folks seem to be arguing over just how such power over others should be decided -- rather than the more fundamental problem of dismantling such power. Let me reduce this down again to one point. I believe actual libertarians should hold two points (and not only two, but these two preclude all this madness in the States over Trump vs. Hillary vs. Johnson) as basic: 1. No one has the right to rule over anyone else. 2. No one has the duty to obey anyone else. These two positions preclude elected and non-elected states period. They also preclude obeying the Constitution. Some guys in a room a couple of centuries ago don't get to decide who has authority over anyone else -- no matter how much people fetishize their [the Framers'] writings. Anyhow, I mostly want to stay out of this discussion. I don't see it as productive. I also think it will almost no influence over what happens in November -- save that it'll likely make some folks here ever more antagonistic toward each other. Regards, Dan My latest Kindle book: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Jun 5 18:06:01 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 11:06:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] squeeze the classics Message-ID: <000b01d1bf54$ec502b10$c4f08130$@att.net> Perhaps some here have noticed that our collective decreasing attention spans apply to ourselves as well as the younger set. Anyone who has tried to view the 1950s Perry Mason early TV dramas, which were so excellent at the time, but unimaginable in any courtroom today. We haven't the ability to concentrate at that level for the required time to follow the story. Today with real-time news, a lot happens in a couple days, or even a few hours. Yesterday I was viewing one of my old favorite movies, Bogart and Bergman in Casablanca. Excellent story! But the pace of life is so slow, it got me to wondering. These old classics are pretty much out of reach of the younger generation, but what if we figure out a way to somehow edit them, cut out some of the dead space? Can it be done? Could we somehow shorten old movies without losing the thread? If we did, would there be a dozen different abridged Casablancas out there competing for attention? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 18:31:21 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 11:31:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and recent selection was trump Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:00 AM, John Clark wrote: snip > Nobody knows why but every once in a while highly civilized countries go > crazy, I do. If you don't, it not for a lack of trying on my part. However, after many years of talking about it, I find that there is a cultural or perhaps even genetic bias against understanding this topic. Anders wrote > > Blaming political ideology does not work as an explanation, since they > were not exactly in a great state before shifting to socialism (Russia a > collapsing monarchy, Cuba an authoritarian dictatorship, North Korea > occupied by the Japanese and Soviet Union). Plus, other basket cases > like Haiti has never been socialist. > > Now, I know political science has a fair bit of knowledge and theory > about why dysfunction tends to run deep. One clear issue is that > institutions tend to be weak and untrustworthy, the incentives for > rulers and ruled are such that corruption and distrust (or even outright > theft) becomes rational. Some failure modes involve tribalist politics, > making joint government hard. It may be more effective to consider the places where decent government emerged and look at what led up to it. Gregory Clark has a lot to say that I think is directly related. He argues that human psychology underwent as strong a selection over 20 generations in some societies as the Russian tame foxes over the same number of generations. There was a related study that I can find if anyone wants to see it because I corresponded with the author and put him in touch with Dr. Clark. It was about rice and wheat farming area in China. Rice takes intense social cooperation to grow, wheat does not. In city people a couple of generations out from being wheat or rice farmers you can strongly sort out who came from these areas using psychological testing. Such studies tend to be rejected because, for some deep rooted reason I don't understand, people tend to intellectionly reject that genetics has anything to do with human personalities (blank slate plus). Anyway, if it is genetics, then places like Haiti can't be fixed until we figure out how to do search and replace on genomes. Keith From pharos at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 18:41:43 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 19:41:43 +0100 Subject: [ExI] squeeze the classics In-Reply-To: <000b01d1bf54$ec502b10$c4f08130$@att.net> References: <000b01d1bf54$ec502b10$c4f08130$@att.net> Message-ID: On 5 June 2016 at 19:06, spike wrote: > Perhaps some here have noticed that our collective decreasing attention > spans apply to ourselves as well as the younger set. Anyone who has tried > to view the 1950s Perry Mason early TV dramas, which were so excellent at > the time, but unimaginable in any courtroom today. We haven?t the ability > to concentrate at that level for the required time to follow the story. > Today with real-time news, a lot happens in a couple days, or even a few > hours. > > Yesterday I was viewing one of my old favorite movies, Bogart and Bergman in > Casablanca. Excellent story! But the pace of life is so slow, it got me to > wondering. These old classics are pretty much out of reach of the younger > generation, but what if we figure out a way to somehow edit them, cut out > some of the dead space? Can it be done? Could we somehow shorten old > movies without losing the thread? If we did, would there be a dozen > different abridged Casablancas out there competing for attention? > You mean like the Reader's Digest Condensed Books? They shrink books to about half length by deleting 'unnecessary' sentences. I doubt whether cutting the classic films short would be worth the effort. For the younger generation you would have to add more fights and explosions to keep their interest. They probably already fast-forward over the boring bits. The problem isn't the old films. The problem is the hyper-active shortened attention span of the new generation. BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 19:12:22 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 15:12:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] political disaster... In-Reply-To: <01fe01d1bf49$b24b6b60$16e24220$@att.net> References: <01fe01d1bf49$b24b6b60$16e24220$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 12:45 PM, spike wrote: > > ?I see no reason why a voter in ?Wyoming should have 66.7 times more >> power over deciding who gets to be a senator than a voter in California, >> ?or why the Wyoming guy should have 18.3 times more power in choosing the >> next president than the California guy. ? John K Clark > > > > ?> ? > The electoral college protects the power and relevance of state > governments. > > ? I don't see how 66.7 California voters being equal to one Wyoming voter helps ?the ? government ?in Sacramento; and the state government of California is far more important than the state government of ?Wyoming? . And it seems that a disproportionate number of anti-libertarian laws ? are state laws? , like restrictions ? on abortion and freedom of speech and ?the ? teaching ?of ? Evolution ?;? although I admit the State of Washington, Oregon, Vermont ? and California have been way ahead of the federal government ?and of everybody else on euthanasia. Actually that's another thing that pisses me off about libertarians, why isn't the right to die a bigger deal with them? Yeah they say they're for it but it's about number 147 on their list of priorities. To hell with the right to carry a machine gun under your coat, why isn't the right to die the number one libertarian issue? ? > ?> ? > The electoral college introduces all manner of weirdness, but it is good > weirdness. It helps protect (to some extent) against ballot cheating. > > ? Fox news ?and ? hillbilly ? radio ? would lead one to believe that voter fraud was a huge problem that can only be fixed by requiring extensive red tape before somebody can vote, but the facts are that out of the 197,000,000 ? ? votes cast for federal candidates between 2002 and 2005, only 40 votes were suspected of being fraudulent ?,? and of those ?40 ? only 26 were convicted, so 99.99999987% of the votes cast ?were ? genuine ?,? ? and that's good enough for government work.? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 19:20:14 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 15:20:14 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and recent selection was trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > >> ?>? >> Nobody knows why but every once in a while highly civilized countries go >> ? ? >> crazy, > > > ?> ? > I do. > ?I didn't predict the rise of Donald Trump. Did you?? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 20:00:21 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 16:00:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and recent selection was trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 2:31 PM, Keith Henson wrote: ?>? > I don't understand, people tend to intellectionly reject that genetics > ? ? > has anything to do with human personalities (blank slate plus). ?True, many people still believe in the blank slate even though there is a ton of evidence showing is just ain't so.? human > ? ? > psychology underwent as strong a selection over 20 generations in some > ? ? > societies as the Russian tame foxes over the same number of > ? ? > generations. ?But the evidence to support that idea isn't ?that great either. If it were that simple wouldn't you expect African-Americans to have a lower crime rate and be less violent than the general population? After all they're descendants of slaves and a submissive non-violent slave gets into less trouble than a rebellious violent slave. When runaway slaves were caught one of the punishments was castration, so if there is a gene for rebelliousness it's not getting into any future generations, but his brother with submissive genes who was content with the status quo stayed home and had lots of children. Maybe things are more complicated with people than with foxes. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 20:10:58 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 13:10:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] squeeze the classics In-Reply-To: <000b01d1bf54$ec502b10$c4f08130$@att.net> References: <000b01d1bf54$ec502b10$c4f08130$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 11:06 AM, spike wrote: > Perhaps some here have noticed that our collective decreasing > attention spans apply to ourselves as well as the younger set. I often wonder about this -- whether it's actually true, whether it's significant, and whether it's a bad thing. I've not studied it closely, hence my skepticism since I only hear about a handful of studies quoted endlessly. The significance might be an issue because I'm unsure how well it was studied in the past to see if humans, on the whole, had longer or shorter attention spans. For instance, looking at long novels from the 18th century, one has to also remember that only a small sliver of society at that time was reading them -- people usually who had the leisure for reading long works of literature and, therefore, were not a good representative sample of their societies. Given that I have all these qualms, I should explore this matter in more depth, but these are my current qualms. > Anyone who has tried to view the 1950s Perry Mason early TV > dramas, which were so excellent at the time, but unimaginable in > any courtroom today. We haven?t the ability to concentrate at that > level for the required time to follow the story. Today with real-time > news, a lot happens in a couple days, or even a few hours. Have you been in any courtroom recently or back then? I don't know how actual courtrooms played out sixty years ago, but I imagine they were as tedious and boring as ones today. Did you mean TV courtroom dramas? I doubt a 01950s TV drama is a good way to measure how actual courtroom trials played out -- any more than how a war film from that time tells us how a battle went or what soldiers did or felt during war. > Yesterday I was viewing one of my old favorite movies, Bogart and > Bergman in Casablanca. Excellent story! But the pace of life is > so slow, it got me to wondering. These old classics are pretty > much out of reach of the younger generation, How much younger? Was "Casablanca" really a young person's film when it was released in 01942? I've enjoyed the film, but I only really sat down to watch it when I was in my late teens. (And I was probably atypical even at that time.) I don't think I would've watched it through at 8 or 15 years of age. Not sure, but I'm also not sure what you're expecting here. I imagine, too, people watching it in 01942 were watching something about their times. People watching it in 01952 were watching something about the not so distant past, about stuff that happened during their lifetime and that they might have been somewhat involved in -- the war and all that -- or read about in the papers, etc. Even by the 01970s, I imagine most people would know people -- parents or grandparents who were directly attached to those times. By the time I sat down to watch it seriously -- 1990s -- it was already a more distant past, but someone watching it now -- say, in the terms or twenties, it's even a generation further removed. > but what if we figure out a way to somehow edit them, cut out > some of the dead space? That's an interesting idea. I'm not sure what the dead space is in "Casablanca." I once had the idea that a good film class would be taking any classic film and trimming a scene or rearranging the scenes -- without adding anything -- would improve the work. (That something's a classic shouldn't mean no one should ever tinker with it or presume the work is as close to perfection as is.) "Casablanca" might be a good candidate for that. Recollecting it -- the last time I saw it was about a year ago -- I think it's already fairly tight, but I'd have to look at it with an eye (and ear) toward cutting it down. > Can it be done? Could we somehow shorten old movies without losing the thread? > If we did, would there be a dozen different abridged Casablancas out there > competing for attention? To be sure, sometimes this was done already. There are different versions of films out there where parts are cut out, especially to suit it for TV or back when many audiences tended to not like really long films. (Yes, one thing I noted was that the three plus hour film has risen in a recent years. Granted, no one is churning out something like "The Human Condition" (over 9 hours), but there are many films released today in the two hours plus category that make wide release.) Would this be a bad thing? There are many versions of "Hamlet" on film. What's wrong with each generation discovering its own version of "Hamlet"? (This reminds me of how every few years certain classics of literature get a new translation. Think of "The Iliad," which, happily, gets translated into English probably once a decade. Butler's Iliad, which I read preteen, is very different than the one by the late Robert Fagles. No reason to stick with Butler's Victorian prose over Fagles or anyone else. I imagine some of this is the conception of the poem changes over time and new discoveries are made.) And with film anything lasting like the printed text, one can still refer to the earlier versions. (Any stage adaptation of anything is likely to depart from the so called original text, so why should film versions not do likewise?) By the way, for some strange reason, your use of Casablancas in the plural makes me think of the novel _Draculas_. Much fun to be had there. :) Regards, Dan Please take a peek at my latest Kindle book at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 20:18:10 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 13:18:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] political disaster In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > Let me reduce this down again to one point. I believe actual libertarians > should hold two points (and not only two, but these two preclude all this > madness in the States over Trump vs. Hillary vs. Johnson) as basic: > > 1. No one has the right to rule over anyone else. > 2. No one has the duty to obey anyone else. > > These two positions preclude elected and non-elected states period. They > also preclude obeying the Constitution. > Doesn't work. That means there should only ever be anarchy, and no such thing as a civil society that gets around the problem of freeloaders (which, if unlimited in practice, means there's no civil society). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 20:30:39 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 13:30:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] political disaster In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 1:18 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 11:09 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> >> Let me reduce this down again to one point. I believe actual libertarians >> should hold two points (and not only two, but these two preclude all this >> madness in the States over Trump vs. Hillary vs. Johnson) as basic: >> >> 1. No one has the right to rule over anyone else. >> 2. No one has the duty to obey anyone else. >> >> These two positions preclude elected and non-elected states period. They also preclude obeying the Constitution. > > Doesn't work. That means there should only ever be anarchy, and no such > thing as a civil society that gets around the problem of freeloaders (which, > if unlimited in practice, means there's no civil society). Anarchy just means no rulers. Per se, it's compatible with living in society. Also, there's an easy way to deal with freeloaders: under the above, no one is compelled to serve anyone freeloading. Anyone who feels they're suffering another's freeloading can simply not assist the freeloader. Or did you mean something like the overly vague notion of positive externalities? Again, same idea. The problem with positive externalities is one can claim them about anything. It's highly subjective. For instance, you now going on a killing spree tomorrow is a positive externality. Does that mean the rest of are freeloading on you not going on a killing spree? Let's say someone, indeed, does go on a killing spree tomorrow, but you, being a champion of society, take them out -- maybe not kill them, but just prevent them from continuing -- before they kill more. Is that a positive externality the rest of us owe you for? What do we owe you? Can you compel payment? Michael Huemer gives a pretty good contemporary coverage of this issue here: http://spot.colorado.edu/~huemer/book3.htm (Please someone help him with web design. Well, unless you feel his work is corrupting, in which case, his web design inoculates many for his pernicious influence.:) Regards, Dan Please take a peek at my latest Kindle book at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 20:38:59 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 15:38:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] squeeze the classics In-Reply-To: References: <000b01d1bf54$ec502b10$c4f08130$@att.net> Message-ID: The problem isn't the old films. The problem is the hyper-active shortened attention span of the new generation. BillK If you repeat something it becomes true. Or not. What I'd like to see is some real data, not news stories, rather than assumptions made from observing people playing video games and entranced by smart phones. I believe that attention span is a basic function of the brain, which evolution may change, but smartphones not. Even if you find some differences, they may stem from personality differences: extroverts may like these things more than introverts, and extroverts have shorter spans. bill w On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 3:10 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 11:06 AM, spike wrote: > > Perhaps some here have noticed that our collective decreasing > > attention spans apply to ourselves as well as the younger set. > > I often wonder about this -- whether it's actually true, whether it's > significant, and whether it's a bad thing. I've not studied it closely, > hence my skepticism since I only hear about a handful of studies quoted > endlessly. The significance might be an issue because I'm unsure how well > it was studied in the past to see if humans, on the whole, had longer or > shorter attention spans. For instance, looking at long novels from the 18th > century, one has to also remember that only a small sliver of society at > that time was reading them -- people usually who had the leisure for > reading long works of literature and, therefore, were not a good > representative sample of their societies. Given that I have all these > qualms, I should explore this matter in more depth, but these are my > current qualms. > > > Anyone who has tried to view the 1950s Perry Mason early TV > > dramas, which were so excellent at the time, but unimaginable in > > any courtroom today. We haven?t the ability to concentrate at that > > level for the required time to follow the story. Today with real-time > > news, a lot happens in a couple days, or even a few hours. > > Have you been in any courtroom recently or back then? I don't know how > actual courtrooms played out sixty years ago, but I imagine they were as > tedious and boring as ones today. Did you mean TV courtroom dramas? I doubt > a 01950s TV drama is a good way to measure how actual courtroom trials > played out -- any more than how a war film from that time tells us how a > battle went or what soldiers did or felt during war. > > > Yesterday I was viewing one of my old favorite movies, Bogart and > > Bergman in Casablanca. Excellent story! But the pace of life is > > so slow, it got me to wondering. These old classics are pretty > > much out of reach of the younger generation, > > How much younger? Was "Casablanca" really a young person's film when it > was released in 01942? I've enjoyed the film, but I only really sat down to > watch it when I was in my late teens. (And I was probably atypical even at > that time.) I don't think I would've watched it through at 8 or 15 years of > age. Not sure, but I'm also not sure what you're expecting here. I imagine, > too, people watching it in 01942 were watching something about their times. > People watching it in 01952 were watching something about the not so > distant past, about stuff that happened during their lifetime and that they > might have been somewhat involved in -- the war and all that -- or read > about in the papers, etc. Even by the 01970s, I imagine most people would > know people -- parents or grandparents who were directly attached to those > times. By the time I sat down to watch it seriously -- 1990s -- it was > already a more distant past, but someone watching it now -- say, in the > terms or twenties, it's even a generation further removed. > > > but what if we figure out a way to somehow edit them, cut out > > some of the dead space? > > That's an interesting idea. I'm not sure what the dead space is in > "Casablanca." I once had the idea that a good film class would be taking > any classic film and trimming a scene or rearranging the scenes -- without > adding anything -- would improve the work. (That something's a classic > shouldn't mean no one should ever tinker with it or presume the work is as > close to perfection as is.) "Casablanca" might be a good candidate for > that. Recollecting it -- the last time I saw it was about a year ago -- I > think it's already fairly tight, but I'd have to look at it with an eye > (and ear) toward cutting it down. > > > Can it be done? Could we somehow shorten old movies without losing the > thread? > > If we did, would there be a dozen different abridged Casablancas out > there > > competing for attention? > > To be sure, sometimes this was done already. There are different versions > of films out there where parts are cut out, especially to suit it for TV or > back when many audiences tended to not like really long films. (Yes, one > thing I noted was that the three plus hour film has risen in a recent > years. Granted, no one is churning out something like "The Human Condition" > (over 9 hours), but there are many films released today in the two hours > plus category that make wide release.) > > Would this be a bad thing? There are many versions of "Hamlet" on film. > What's wrong with each generation discovering its own version of "Hamlet"? > (This reminds me of how every few years certain classics of literature get > a new translation. Think of "The Iliad," which, happily, gets translated > into English probably once a decade. Butler's Iliad, which I read preteen, > is very different than the one by the late Robert Fagles. No reason to > stick with Butler's Victorian prose over Fagles or anyone else. I imagine > some of this is the conception of the poem changes over time and new > discoveries are made.) And with film anything lasting like the printed > text, one can still refer to the earlier versions. (Any stage adaptation of > anything is likely to depart from the so called original text, so why > should film versions not do likewise?) > > By the way, for some strange reason, your use of Casablancas in the plural > makes me think of the novel _Draculas_. Much fun to be had there. :) > > Regards, > > Dan > Please take a peek at my latest Kindle book at: > http://mybook.to/Gurlitt > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Jun 5 23:27:53 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 19:27:53 -0400 Subject: [ExI] political disaster In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: ?> ? > To me, it's nutty that anyone anywhere should have political power over > anyone else -- that this is acceptable at all. It's also nutty that some > folks seem to be arguing over just how such power over others should be > decided -- rather than the more fundamental problem of dismantling such > power. > Let me reduce this down again to one point. I believe actual libertarians > should hold two points (and not only two, but these two preclude all this > madness in the States over Trump vs. Hillary vs. Johnson) as basic: > 1. No one has the right to rule over anyone else. > 2. No one has the duty to obey anyone else. > These two positions preclude elected and non-elected states period. > ? ? > They also preclude obeying the Constitution. > ?That's true, those two positions do preclude obeying the Constitution, but when 15,375 H-bombs exist on the planet it's time to leave fantasies behind and get practical. No civilization in the history of the world has ever operated according to those two positions, not even hunter gatherers, and there is virtually no chance of our civilization evolving into one that does. The reason is that once a standard has been set it's always very difficult and often impossible to change. The genetic code is not the best one around, Francis Crick found a better one in the 1950s, but there is no going back now, the standard was set by a single microorganism 4 billion years ago and now we're stuck with it, and it's not just us, all life on the planet is stuck with it. So we'll just have to make the best of it. We just can't go back 4 billion years and start over. Well OK interpreting those 2 positions in a fundamentalist way and developing a society around it (would such a thing even be a society?) might not be quite as difficult as changing the genetic code but almost. ?> ? > Anyhow, I mostly want to stay out of this discussion. I don't see it as > productive. I also think it will almost no influence over what happens in > November -- save that it'll likely make some folks here ever more > antagonistic toward each other. > ?Actually I like the people around here, I may yell at them a bit from time to time but that doesn't mean I don't like them, that's why I've stayed on the Extropian list for so long. I like the people because they're oddballs just like me. Let's face it, our political and philosophic ideas are way way way outside the mainstream even by the standards of western culture, ?by world standards we're even wackier and I'm one of the wackiest. Like it or not there is just no way we're going to convince 7.1 billion people to live a pure libertarian life, so we'll just have to do the best we can with what we have, and one of the things we have is the US constitution. We could do worse. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Jun 6 00:08:00 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 17:08:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] squeeze the classics In-Reply-To: References: <000b01d1bf54$ec502b10$c4f08130$@att.net> Message-ID: <010101d1bf87$7d6b28c0$78417a40$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 1:11 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] squeeze the classics On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 11:06 AM, spike > wrote: >>? Perhaps some here have noticed that our collective decreasing > attention spans apply to ourselves as well as the younger set. >?I often wonder about this -- whether it's actually true, whether it's significant, and whether it's a bad thing. ? It has its redeeming qualities. We can take in a lot more information a lot more quickly now. Consider a movie that came out in 1977, before most of us had ever played a video game, the first Star Wars. Do you remember how it made you so nervous it made you want to jump out of your skin? Did me. Doesn?t now. What changed? The pace of life in movies has increased so much, they get a lot more story is a lot less time. Talking heads movies have grown rare. >>? Anyone who has tried to view the 1950s Perry Mason early TV > dramas, which were so excellent at the time, but unimaginable in > any courtroom today? >?Have you been in any courtroom recently or back then?.. Dan What I meant was it stays on the same camera view for several minutes at a time. Nothing does that anymore, not even televised golf tournaments (golf, on TV. I have never quite understood watching guys play golf, never mind having it on a medium such as TV.) We are accustomed to taking in information much faster than we did even 40 yrs ago. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 00:27:26 2016 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 20:27:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] squeeze the classics In-Reply-To: References: <000b01d1bf54$ec502b10$c4f08130$@att.net> Message-ID: On Jun 5, 2016 4:40 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: > > The problem isn't the old films. The problem is the hyper-active > shortened attention span of the new generation. > > BillK > > If you repeat something it becomes true. Or not. What I'd like to see is some real data, not news stories, rather than assumptions made from observing people playing video games and entranced by smart phones. I believe that attention span is a basic function of the brain, which evolution may change, but smartphones not. > Even if you find some differences, they may stem from personality differences: extroverts may like these things more than introverts, and extroverts have shorter spans. I don't think a 3+ hour movie is longer than modern attention span. Consider the "Netflix binge" where one watches an entire season of a show in a day or two. Perhaps the problem is that old movies do not stimulate enough modalities. There was a lot of talking in those old 'character development' movies - which made sense when effects were special and CGI was likely only someone's monogram. Of course that means the audience needed to listen. Now we have many more options for visualizing the story, so dialogue is used to stitch contexts together. In the near future we'll wonder how non-360 degree movies ever held an audience's attention. Soon after we'll refuse to watch "movies" (or whatever they'll be called) if the AI driving the story are too predictable. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 00:52:15 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 20:52:15 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 3, 2016 at 2:39 PM, John Clark wrote: > Classified data > ? ? > is allowed to be transmitted by the internet provided that the > ? > information is encrypted > ? ? > in a NSA approved way > ? ? > and there is a firewall > ?on the computers involved ? > that meets NSA specifications. Sorry, that's not true. NSA-approved encryption is required on *classified* networks like JWICS ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joint_Worldwide_Intelligence_Communications_System) and SIPRnet, but that doesn't mean classified encrypted data can be transmitted via the public Inteernet. If the Internet were not allowed the government would be > ?even? > ? > more dysfunctional than it is. > ?It's true there are a few specially dedicated networks that are > independent of the internet for hyper-secret things like launch codes, but > for the vast majority of secret stuff a dedicated line wouldn't be > practical, there's too much information and too many nodes. > John, you're a pretty smart guy. You should be smart enough to realize when you don't know what you're talking about. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 02:27:51 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 5 Jun 2016 19:27:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] squeeze the classics In-Reply-To: <010101d1bf87$7d6b28c0$78417a40$@att.net> References: <000b01d1bf54$ec502b10$c4f08130$@att.net> <010101d1bf87$7d6b28c0$78417a40$@att.net> Message-ID: <37A6559D-3920-4D4E-8EA5-02651285603F@gmail.com> On Jun 5, 2016, at 5:08 PM, spike wrote: > From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan > Sent: Sunday, June 05, 2016 1:11 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] squeeze the classics > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 11:06 AM, spike wrote: > > > >>? Perhaps some here have noticed that our collective decreasing > > attention spans apply to ourselves as well as the younger set. > > >?I often wonder about this -- whether it's actually true, whether it's significant, and whether it's a bad thing. ? > > It has its redeeming qualities. We can take in a lot more information a lot more quickly now. Yes. Some of this is because, in certain areas, the audience simply knows more so the creative artist can presume their target audience doesn't need to be spoon fed all the background information. > > Consider a movie that came out in 1977, before most of us had ever played a video game, the first Star Wars. Do you remember how it made you so nervous it made you want to jump out of your skin? By the time I saw Star Wars, I'd already played plenty of video games. ;) And it was TV. ;) Wasn't Lucas also referencing the dogfight films of earlier times and trying to get away from more cerebral SF like "2001"? > Did me. Doesn?t now. What changed? The pace of life in movies has increased so much, they get a lot more story is a lot less time. Talking heads movies have grown rare. It depends on the audience. "Casablanca" wasn't like the competing stuff targeted for younger audiences at that time. Look at "The Wizard of Oz." Much faster pace, no? Anyhow, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from one film. "My Dinner With Andre" (01981) and "Serenity" (02005) are talky films from very different genres. What can we conclude from them? > >>? Anyone who has tried to view the 1950s Perry Mason early TV > > dramas, which were so excellent at the time, but unimaginable in > > any courtroom today? > > >?Have you been in any courtroom recently or back then?.. Dan > > What I meant was it stays on the same camera view for several minutes at a time. Nothing does that anymore, not even televised golf tournaments (golf, on TV. I have never quite understood watching guys play golf, never mind having it on a medium such as TV.) > > We are accustomed to taking in information much faster than we did even 40 yrs ago. It might be a matter of having more competing sources of entertainment. After all, we're taking about entertainment. If you can easily choose another source of entertainment, do you need to slog through something that's boring you? And the technology and the ability to manage it is there to do these things. A few decades ago, having multiple live cameras on anything would cost a lot or be near impossible. (Wasn't the three camera thing a big innovation in TV during the 01950s?) Regards, Dan See my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 07:50:55 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 03:50:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Trump, Jail, and libel law In-Reply-To: References: <012f01d1bdca$1bfcc990$53f65cb0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 10:46 AM, John Clark wrote: I'm not a big fan of a madman getting his hands on the nuclear launch > codes of the USA. > ### When you use extreme hyperbole in a non-ironic way you really make it hard for others to engage you in a meaningful conversation. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 08:23:19 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 04:23:19 -0400 Subject: [ExI] political disaster was: request to tone down politics In-Reply-To: <031701d1bf40$8a16b090$9e4411b0$@gmail.com> References: <031701d1bf40$8a16b090$9e4411b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Gregory Lewis wrote: > > > Even if you?re pretty whiggish (which I?m guessing Extropians generally > are?) about social progress over time, you might still want to have some > institutional conservatism as we approximate better and better the ?right > system?, as newer innovations are more likely to be error. > ### Are we whiggish? Hmm, dunno. How many supporters of the Corn Laws do we have here? Supporters of the Prohibition? Weird people fit into the usual mass-market political classifications like a square peg in a round hole. I dimly remember this list doing some surveys of members, maybe 15 years ago. There seemed to be a lot of trying not to fit in too well. I feel allergic to almost all that is contained currently under the label "liberal" in the US. But then, I am hardly illiberal either, and you couldn't call me a conservative. Such a confusion of terms, ever creeping classifiers. Weird. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 08:32:34 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 04:32:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> <013401d1bdcb$cb0c80a0$612581e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 11:00 AM, John Clark wrote: Hillary > ### Ah, politics makes for strange bedfellows. Would you ever imagine you would some day be a fervent defender of ol' Hillary, back when she was just Bill's wife? -------------------- all too real existential threat poised by Donald Trump. ### Silly hyperbole. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 08:40:28 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 04:40:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] political disaster In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 7:27 PM, John Clark wrote: > we're even wackier and I'm one of the wackiest. > ### Yes, we are and you are :) > Like it or not there is just no way we're going to convince 7.1 billion > people to live a pure libertarian life, so we'll just have to do the best > we can with what we have, and one of the things we have is the US > constitution. We could do worse. > ### I am not completely pessimistic here, once we upload there might be some evolution towards more extensive self-regulation of sentients. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 08:45:47 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 01:45:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] political disaster was: request to tone down politics In-Reply-To: References: <031701d1bf40$8a16b090$9e4411b0$@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jun 6, 2016, at 1:23 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >> On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 11:40 AM, Gregory Lewis wrote: >> Even if you?re pretty whiggish (which I?m guessing Extropians generally are?) about social progress over time, you might still want to have some institutional conservatism as we approximate better and better the ?right system?, as newer innovations are more likely to be error. >> > ### Are we whiggish? Hmm, dunno. How many supporters of the Corn Laws do we have here? Supporters of the Prohibition? > > Weird people fit into the usual mass-market political classifications like a square peg in a round hole. I dimly remember this list doing some surveys of members, maybe 15 years ago. There seemed to be a lot of trying not to fit in too well. > > I feel allergic to almost all that is contained currently under the label "liberal" in the US. But then, I am hardly illiberal either, and you couldn't call me a conservative. Such a confusion of terms, ever creeping classifiers. I thought Spike meant whiggish in the generic sense of viewing progress as inevitable. You know, the Whig view of history -- rather than the Whig Party. I view myself as in the tradition that traces back to the classical liberals, the original Left. And that has nothing to do with modern conservatism, which traces itself back to thinkers like Burke and Carlisle. Regards, Dan See my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 08:52:01 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 04:52:01 -0400 Subject: [ExI] political disaster In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 2:09 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > > > 1. No one has the right to rule over anyone else. > 2. No one has the duty to obey anyone else. > ### A very good starting point. But I would reframe as follows: "The in-group consists of those who have no desire to rule over in-group members", and then a lot of good can be derived from this foundation, including the absence of duties aside from the duty not to rule over others. It's very important to define an in-group, otherwise contradictions will arise and scuttle the nascent utopia. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 08:57:03 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 04:57:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and recent selection was trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 4:00 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > ?But the evidence to support that idea isn't ?that great either. If it > were that simple wouldn't you expect African-Americans to have a lower > crime rate and be less violent than the general population? After all > they're descendants of slaves and a submissive non-violent slave gets into > less trouble than a rebellious violent slave. > ### Four generations of mild to moderate selection is not enough to counteract 150 000 years of evolutionary split. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 16:31:06 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 12:31:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> <013401d1bdcb$cb0c80a0$612581e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >> ?> ? >> all too real existential threat poised by Donald Trump. > > > ?>? > ### Silly hyperbole. > ? 1) A nuclear armed Saudi Arabia, Germany, Japan, South Korea,Taiwan... 2) Not ruling ? ? out using nuclear weapons against Europe because "Europe is a big place ?"? . 3) Angering every single foreign ally the USA has. 4) Saying "I know more about ? ? ISIS than the generals do, believe me". 5) Saying he would "annihilate ? ? ISIS very very quickly", but not saying how other than "bomb the shit out of them". 6) Ordering the army to Torture for fun even though the army says it will mutiny if he does. 7) Ordering the army to murder children because Trump doesn't like their father even though the army says it will mutiny if he does. 8) Ordering political opponents jailed and newspapers put out of business because he ?doesn't? like what they said. 9) Refusing to pay the national debt. 10) Starting a global trade war. 11) Building a wall. Please explain which one of those is silly hyperbole. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From dsunley at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 16:44:21 2016 From: dsunley at gmail.com (Darin Sunley) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 10:44:21 -0600 Subject: [ExI] squeeze the classics In-Reply-To: <37A6559D-3920-4D4E-8EA5-02651285603F@gmail.com> References: <000b01d1bf54$ec502b10$c4f08130$@att.net> <010101d1bf87$7d6b28c0$78417a40$@att.net> <37A6559D-3920-4D4E-8EA5-02651285603F@gmail.com> Message-ID: I watched 2001: a Space Odyssey last year. While the pacing /is/ slow (both due to its mid-60's heritage and the fact that, even on top of that, Kubrick was trying to make an artistic statement about the tedium and isolation of deep space travel), I found it to be an extremely economically designed film. Every single shot accomplished something to drive the plot or the emotional balance of the film, and there is very little fat to be cut, as far as I could tell. On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 8:27 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Jun 5, 2016, at 5:08 PM, spike wrote: > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org > ] *On Behalf Of *Dan TheBookMan > *Sent:* Sunday, June 05, 2016 1:11 PM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] squeeze the classics > > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 11:06 AM, spike wrote: > > >>? Perhaps some here have noticed that our collective decreasing > > attention spans apply to ourselves as well as the younger set. > > >?I often wonder about this -- whether it's actually true, whether it's > significant, and whether it's a bad thing. ? > > > > It has its redeeming qualities. We can take in a lot more information a > lot more quickly now. > > > Yes. Some of this is because, in certain areas, the audience simply knows > more so the creative artist can presume their target audience doesn't need > to be spoon fed all the background information. > > > Consider a movie that came out in 1977, before most of us had ever played > a video game, the first Star Wars. Do you remember how it made you so > nervous it made you want to jump out of your skin? > > > By the time I saw Star Wars, I'd already played plenty of video games. ;) > And it was TV. ;) > > Wasn't Lucas also referencing the dogfight films of earlier times and > trying to get away from more cerebral SF like "2001"? > > Did me. Doesn?t now. What changed? The pace of life in movies has > increased so much, they get a lot more story is a lot less time. Talking > heads movies have grown rare. > > > It depends on the audience. "Casablanca" wasn't like the competing stuff > targeted for younger audiences at that time. Look at "The Wizard of Oz." > Much faster pace, no? > > Anyhow, I wouldn't draw too many conclusions from one film. "My Dinner > With Andre" (01981) and "Serenity" (02005) are talky films from very > different genres. What can we conclude from them? > > >>? Anyone who has tried to view the 1950s Perry Mason early TV > > dramas, which were so excellent at the time, but unimaginable in > > any courtroom today? > > >?Have you been in any courtroom recently or back then?.. Dan > > > > What I meant was it stays on the same camera view for several minutes at a > time. Nothing does that anymore, not even televised golf tournaments > (golf, on TV. I have never quite understood watching guys play golf, never > mind having it on a medium such as TV.) > > > > We are accustomed to taking in information much faster than we did even 40 > yrs ago. > > > It might be a matter of having more competing sources of entertainment. > After all, we're taking about entertainment. If you can easily choose > another source of entertainment, do you need to slog through something > that's boring you? And the technology and the ability to manage it is there > to do these things. A few decades ago, having multiple live cameras on > anything would cost a lot or be near impossible. (Wasn't the three camera > thing a big innovation in TV during the 01950s?) > > Regards, > > Dan > See my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: > http://mybook.to/Gurlitt > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 16:51:28 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 12:51:28 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and recent selection was trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: ? >> ?>>? >> If it were that simple wouldn't you expect African-Americans to have a >> lower crime rate and be less violent than the general population? After all >> they're descendants of slaves and a submissive non-violent slave gets into >> less trouble than a rebellious violent slave. >> > > ?> ? > ### Four generations of mild to moderate selection is not enough to > counteract 150 000 years of evolutionary split. > ?Today most Australians are descendants of 168,000 British criminals deported to a penal colony there between 1788 and 1868, and yet today Australia has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. 70 years ago Germany and Japan were the most militaristic countries in the world, now they may be the least militaristic. ? ? John K Clark? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 17:01:55 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 12:01:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and recent selection was trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: 70 years ago Germany and Japan were the most militaristic countries in the world, now they may be the least militaristic. ? ? John K Clark? Does anyone want to go to war when they are rich? Well, historically, I suppose many did, but now it would just hurt trade. So much interdependency. There are some very interesting statistics on genetics and crime which would likely startle everyone in this group. Plays a small role at best. bill w On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:51 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:57 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki < > rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > > ? >>> ?>>? >>> If it were that simple wouldn't you expect African-Americans to have a >>> lower crime rate and be less violent than the general population? After all >>> they're descendants of slaves and a submissive non-violent slave gets into >>> less trouble than a rebellious violent slave. >>> >> >> ?> ? >> ### Four generations of mild to moderate selection is not enough to >> counteract 150 000 years of evolutionary split. >> > > ?Today most Australians are descendants of 168,000 British criminals > deported to a penal colony there between 1788 and 1868, and yet today > Australia has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world. 70 years ago > Germany and Japan were the most militaristic countries in the world, now > they may be the least militaristic. ? > > ? John K Clark? > > > > > >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 18:56:47 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 11:56:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] squeeze the classics In-Reply-To: References: <000b01d1bf54$ec502b10$c4f08130$@att.net> <010101d1bf87$7d6b28c0$78417a40$@att.net> <37A6559D-3920-4D4E-8EA5-02651285603F@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 9:44 AM, Darin Sunley wrote: > I watched 2001: a Space Odyssey last year. While the pacing /is/ slow > (both due to its mid-60's heritage and the fact that, I don't think it was the time or the "heritage" per se. There were more action-driven space adventure SF films released back then and before then. Kubrick seems to be referencing and critiquing some of them. For instance, a standard scene in space SF films is the ship entering the meteor field -- usually completely unawares until the stuff is right on top of them. When the Discovery One passes through the asteroid belt, you can see two asteroids far from the ship hardly moving and not menacing anything. I believe that was Kubrick's twist of the typical meteor field scene. > even on top of that, > Kubrick was trying to make an artistic statement about the tedium and > isolation of deep space travel), I agree. See my comment on the asteroid field above. :) I think this was more Kubrick's sensibility than the 01960s sensibility. Also, sticking to the same scene, in the Star Wars series, passing through an asteroid belt is more like the earlier SF films -- really exciting with menacing giant space rocks tumbling around ready to destroy any spaceship reckless enough to venture near them. > I found it to be an extremely economically > designed film. Every single shot accomplished something to drive the > plot or the emotional balance of the film, and there is very little fat to be > cut, as far as I could tell. I believe some stuff could've been cut, but I don't think it would be much. So, we're probably mostly in agreement here. :) Regards, Dan My latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," is free today PDT from: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 18:57:44 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 13:57:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] anarchy Message-ID: One argument seems to settle this issue: if there is no government of any kind, then there is no police force of any kind. If no one can be told what to do or restrained from doing it, then you have chaos and rule of the mighty, who then will tell people what to do. QED bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 19:15:42 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 15:15:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:57 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > One argument seems to settle this issue: if there is no government of any > kind, then there is no police force of any kind. > > If no one can be told what to do or restrained from doing it, then you > have chaos and rule of the mighty, who then will tell people what to do. > QED > A group of people can form a community and agree to the rules of being a member of the community, including funding a police force. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 19:21:09 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 12:21:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anarchy Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:57 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > One argument seems to settle this issue: if there is no government of any kind, then > there is no police force of any kind. > > If no one can be told what to do or restrained from doing it, then you have chaos and > rule of the mighty, who then will tell people what to do. QED People need to be told what to do because? You seem to be presuming that no one will coordinate or cooperate at all in the absence of a state. Yet history shows people do coordinate and cooperate without a state. (We can debate how well they do and whether a state makes this happen better, but were there no coordination or cooperation, how would a state arise in the first place?) As for predation -- which I take as your real concern here -- why couldn't people defend against this and also coordinate for their defense against this? Now, you might, like Ayn Rand, believe this would only result in rival gangs fighting over turf, but there are good historical and current examples of stateless societies where that doesn't happen. Add to this, actual gang wars do happen under statism -- aside from wars between states -- usually because states have prohibited (or heavily restricted) some activity (gambling, sex work, recreation drug trade, etc.) to make it lucrative to war over and because the state has legally disarmed (and not just guns, but all remedies*) the general populace. We can, of course, discuss the details of all this, but I don't feel it's a slam dunk argument for a state as you believe. Regards, Dan My latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," is free today PDT from: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt * Similar to how the US and UK governments slowly regulated mutual aid societies to benefit doctors and insurers. These aid societies were a non-state means for working poor folk to buy healthcare without relying on charity. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 19:38:22 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 14:38:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A group of people can form a community and agree to the rules of being a member of the community, including funding a police force. -Dave *And then you have a government. Any time you get people to contribute to something, like the up keep of the road they live on, you have in effect taxes and people to collect them and distribute them. Then there is community water, fire protection and so on. What could be debated is how big an area needs a government to supply these services - town, county, state etc.* *Thus: there will be governments. Period. And rules for crimes, not paying taxes and the like. (I saw one community fire crew let a house burn down because the owner owed $75 to the fire dept.) People are government, so gov will do stupid things because there are stupid people - no shortage of them. Don't we see them getting elected all the time? * *bill w* On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:21 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 11:57 AM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > > One argument seems to settle this issue: if there is no government of > any kind, then > > there is no police force of any kind. > > > > If no one can be told what to do or restrained from doing it, then you > have chaos and > > rule of the mighty, who then will tell people what to do. QED > > People need to be told what to do because? You seem to be presuming that > no one will coordinate or cooperate at all in the absence of a state. Yet > history shows people do coordinate and cooperate without a state. (We can > debate how well they do and whether a state makes this happen better, but > were there no coordination or cooperation, how would a state arise in the > first place?) > > As for predation -- which I take as your real concern here -- why couldn't > people defend against this and also coordinate for their defense against > this? > > Now, you might, like Ayn Rand, believe this would only result in rival > gangs fighting over turf, but there are good historical and current > examples of stateless societies where that doesn't happen. Add to this, > actual gang wars do happen under statism -- aside from wars between states > -- usually because states have prohibited (or heavily restricted) some > activity (gambling, sex work, recreation drug trade, etc.) to make it > lucrative to war over and because the state has legally disarmed (and not > just guns, but all remedies*) the general populace. > > We can, of course, discuss the details of all this, but I don't feel it's > a slam dunk argument for a state as you believe. > > Regards, > > Dan > My latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," is free today PDT from: > http://mybook.to/Gurlitt > > * Similar to how the US and UK governments slowly regulated mutual aid > societies to benefit doctors and insurers. These aid societies were a > non-state means for working poor folk to buy healthcare without relying on > charity. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 19:45:57 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 15:45:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and recent selection was trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:01 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > ?> ? > Does anyone want to go to war when they are rich? Well, historically, I > suppose many did, but now it would just hurt trade. So much > interdependency. > ?Exactly, it's easier to get rich with trade than with war, but with Donald's ? ?sky high tariffs, trade wars, and ?imbecilic wall world trade would grind to a halt. And soon we'd have different type of war than a trade war. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 20:12:10 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:12:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] political disaster In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:40 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > ?> ? >> Like it or not there is just no way we're going to convince 7.1 billion >> people to live a pure libertarian life, so we'll just have to do the best >> we can with what we have, and one of the things we have is the US >> constitution. We could do worse. >> > > ?> ? > ### I am not completely pessimistic here, once we upload there might be > some evolution towards more extensive self-regulation of sentients. > ?Well sure but we have to get there first. We're not going to have mind uploading in 4 years and if Donald becomes? ?Commander in Chief ?I'm really terrified we won't even have technological civilization in 4 years. Look I entirely understand when libertarians say they don't like the way things are now and I sympathise, but that doesn't mean we have to fall in line behind every loudmouthed jackass who says he doesn't like the way things are now either, because there are a astronomical number of ways to make things worse and only a very few ways to make things better. A tornado in a junkyard is unlikely to assemble a 747, about as unlikely as Donald making things better. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 20:14:52 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:14:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah Bill beat me to it. Communicating and cooperating is government. I guess it's really about no central government. But those communities will begin cooperating with others. Cephalization will always emerge as a consequence of vulnerability. Getting rid of that vulnerability is sort of the point of everything. A world government where everyone is safe and happy is equal to a loose global collection of collectively governed communes where everyone is safe and happy. The problem is not political, it's social and moral. Bad people who want to exploit others will find a way to monopolize control of force or production in any political system or lack thereof. It's a big responsibility of H+ to try and fix the billion-year, darwinian trauma of the collective self that leads to exploitation of others. This essentially means severing ties to the animal past, which itself presents many problems. Are those emotions too valuable to the self to eschew? What about forcing bad animalistic people to lose that--is it immoral? The real point is that there are always going to be problems. It's the drive to solve them that defines curiosity, intelligence, consciousness itself. You'll never see the solution before you die, in any era. Accept that but still try. Life, existence, is an orgiastic foaming flowing psychedelic tragicomic explosion of the dueling modalities of chaos and order. Extropy is only half the story. The people over at the Entropy Institute think we're the bad guys. They just want everybody to be able to rest, and see striving as blasphemous. There's always two sides to the coin, and that coin itself is just the side of another coin, ana and kata forever. Scale is non-existent. &c. "Do what thou will" -Thelema "Do what thou are told by those who have dedicated their lives to figuring out what people should do" -The other side "Do or don't" -me -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 20:15:32 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 13:15:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 6, 2016 12:22 PM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: > As for predation -- which I take as your real concern here -- why couldn't people defend against this and also coordinate for their defense against this? Said coordination is a government. It involves some people saying what others should do, rather than everyone just doing whatever they want. If the others refuse to do what they are told, then by definition they are not coordinating. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 20:21:04 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:21:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Wise Donald Trump In-Reply-To: References: <01b401d1bc6d$6f0dd650$4d2982f0$@att.net> <023101d1bc78$541c6720$fc553560$@att.net> <02a501d1bc8b$4466d140$cd3473c0$@att.net> <00b001d1bcfe$b22b9210$1682b630$@att.net> <000001d1bd19$2a23b3f0$7e6b1bd0$@att.net> <005501d1bd32$f0af9bb0$d20ed310$@att.net> <013401d1bdcb$cb0c80a0$612581e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:32 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: ?> ? > ### Ah, politics makes for strange bedfellows. Would you ever imagine you > would some day be a fervent defender of ol' Hillary, back when she was just > Bill's wife? > ?The best president in the history of the USA was John Kennedy because of what he did for 13 days in October of 1962. After Kennedy the best president in my lifetime was Hillary's husband, if Hillary is half as good she'd be many orders of magnitude better than Donald. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 20:30:31 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 13:30:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Jun 6, 2016 12:22 PM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: >> As for predation -- which I take as your real concern here -- why couldn't >> people defend against this and also coordinate for their defense against this? > > Said coordination is a government. No, it's not -- unless you're going to define government so broadly that you helping stop someone from being raped makes me a government, in which case, what the hell would anarchy be? It would seem you're sneaking in a definition of anarchy as completely social atomism. Fine, if that's your stipulated definition, but then that's not what any actual anarchist, especially of the libertarian sort, has ever argued for. > It involves some people saying what > others should do, rather than everyone just doing whatever they want. People can't do whatever they want under anarchy. After all, by the two (not sole) principles I offered, no one has a right to rule anyone else. What that means in practice is you can't treat others as tools -- raping, killing, enslaving, stealing from, etc. Those would mean ruling over someone else, no? > If > the others refuse to do what they are told, then by definition they are not > coordinating. Not at all. In many, probably most social coordinations, there's no one telling someone else what to do. I'm walking down the sidewalk, for instance, and someone is coming down the same sidewalk. I move to my right and they to theirs. No one told us what to do here. There wasn't a cop involved or no session of the legislature debated and legislated on this. Regards, Dan My latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," is free today PDT from: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Jun 6 20:31:19 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 13:31:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and recent selection was trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00b301d1c032$624630c0$26d29240$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark ?>..Exactly, it's easier to get rich with trade than with war, but with Donald's ? sky high tariffs, trade wars, and ?imbecilic wall world trade would grind to a halt. And soon we'd have different type of war than a trade war. John K Clark This carries the assumption that Donald gets any of this thru congress. He goes in with the animosity of both parties, a scattering of support at best. Nothing changes. If Clinton wins, she goes in under a dark cloud of justifiable suspicion. Nothing changes. In both cases, congress realizes that cooperation with the executive branch is political toxic waste. Either way, congress doesn?t give them what they want, and the new president discovers the only way to get his or her agenda is to make deals with those who can get it done. This returns the power of the executive branch to where it should be. In some important ways, both the leading candidates will learn that the job they just won carries less useable power than the one they left behind. Of course we still risk either of these two nuking somebody. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 20:48:56 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 13:48:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:38 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > A group of people can form a community and agree to the rules of being a member > of the community, including funding a police force. > > -Dave > > And then you have a government. Any time you get people to contribute to something, > like the up keep of the road they live on, you have in effect taxes and people to collect > them and distribute them. Then there is community water, fire protection and so on. > What could be debated is how big an area needs a government to supply these services > - town, county, state etc. This is defining government too loosely. I'm fairly sure, too, Dave meant something where people explicitly consent and aren't forced to participate -- not something like a modern city where simply by living there some folks down in city hall tell you what to do and how much you owe them for the favor under threat of sending an armed gang to lock you in a cage or gun you down. Let me put this another way: What does anarchy mean to you? Just pure social chaos? No one cooperating on anything? If so, that's not what I mean by the term and not what any reasonable anarchist I know means by it. It's not even the original meaning, which is just "no rulers." That's why I presented those two positions -- no one has a right to rule anyone else and no one has a duty to obey anyone else. (I got those from Michael Huemer too. So, I'm not making any claims to being original or innovative.) > Thus: there will be governments. Period. And rules for crimes, not paying taxes and > the like. (I saw one community fire crew let a house burn down because the owner > owed $75 to the fire dept.) People are government, so gov will do stupid things > because there are stupid people - no shortage of them. Don't we see them getting > elected all the time? My guess is the kind of community Dave was talking about -- and he can correct me where I'm wrong -- is one where no joining wouldn't be a crime. Also, the likely outcome of not paying the dues would be simply that you don't get the services. For instance, you decide not to pay for the security service, then they _might not_ help if your home is burglarized. I hope you don't take offense, but since you're a libertarian and read a lot (more than me, I think:), I'm sure you've read many of the arguments for market anarchism. All the stuff you're bringing up here are all introductory level arguments. (Ditto for Adrian who's discussed this before with me. It seems more like a merry-go-round on this: the same counterarguments I've read on and off for years now are presented again and again. And it's not like I've done nothing to respond to them. Add to this, my responses are ones that are already attested in the anarchist literature, sometimes for decades now or even longer.) Regards, Dan My latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," is free today PDT from: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 21:03:47 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 14:03:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and recent selection was trump Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:01 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Does anyone want to go to war when they are rich? Well, historically, I suppose > many did, but now it would just hurt trade. So much interdependency. I think there's the paradox that being more market-oriented -- even back in ancient times -- generates more wealth and that can fund militarism. Maybe I'm cherry picking examples, but ancient Athens was probably the wealthiest Greek city-state when it started building its empire. (And I mean on a per capita basis here. Someone pointed out that in absolute wealth, the Persian empire probably had more overall wealth, but the average Persian subject was living at a subsistence level compared to average Athenian subject who was likely living two times above subsistence level. So, in Persia, a tiny ruling class was fabulously wealthy, but the per capita wealth was small, but in Athens there's was more distributed wealth and per capita wealth was much larger, probably double or more above that of the Persian or Spartan, etc. Cf. Jonah Ober's _The Rise and Fall of Classical Greece_ on the wealth comparisons.) > There are some very interesting statistics on genetics and crime which would likely > startle everyone in this group. Plays a small role at best. I'm not sure how much these play in militarism though. After all, if you have a population that's well behaved, they might have good genetics in one sense that makes for higher social cohesion: obedience to authority. (Presuming there's some genetic control there.) If so, then it just takes bad policy to send a very cohesive society down a militaristic path. How so? Most people will obey and you only need a tiny fraction to carry out actual brutality. There seems to be some data that the average person anywhere can be trained to obey to kill someone. Sure, there are outliers, but, again, only a small fraction of the population needs to beat, shoot, or bomb others. (And bombing is actually one of those things that's so remote, I'm betting it's far easier to do without much psychological blockage -- unlike shooting, stabbing, or beating someone.) This is leaving aside the usual problems with evo psych arguments. Regards, Dan My latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," is free today PDT from: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 21:11:12 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:11:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is defining government too loosely. I'm fairly sure, too, Dave meant something where people explicitly consent and aren't forced to participate -- not something like a modern city where simply by living there some folks down in city hall tell you what to do and how much you owe them for the favor under threat of sending an armed gang to lock you in a cage or gun you down. dan Does a man rule his family? What if some yahoo doesn't want to pay for anything, and so he is cut off from all services. Does that mean that anyone can attack his family? Burn down his house? Kidnap his kids? What if he is a wife beater? Are we going to stand for that? What if he is insane? I think that there is a time to tell people what to do and if they don't, fine them, take away their family, or put them in jail or an asylum. Then there is the moral aspect: should a person be allowed to enjoy services without paying? Like a man who won't pay taxes but lives on a road upkept with taxes? I just don't see anything by anybody in this discussion that leaves me to believe that any kind of anarchy, short of living by yourself in a cave, is even possible. If I or we are using an incorrect definition of anarchy, them let's have one that fits some rational way of living. bill w On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 3:48 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 12:38 PM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > > A group of people can form a community and agree to the rules of being a > member > > of the community, including funding a police force. > > > > -Dave > > > > And then you have a government. Any time you get people to contribute > to something, > > like the up keep of the road they live on, you have in effect taxes and > people to collect > > them and distribute them. Then there is community water, fire > protection and so on. > > What could be debated is how big an area needs a government to supply > these services > > - town, county, state etc. > > This is defining government too loosely. I'm fairly sure, too, Dave meant > something where people explicitly consent and aren't forced to participate > -- not something like a modern city where simply by living there some folks > down in city hall tell you what to do and how much you owe them for the > favor under threat of sending an armed gang to lock you in a cage or gun > you down. > > Let me put this another way: What does anarchy mean to you? Just pure > social chaos? No one cooperating on anything? If so, that's not what I mean > by the term and not what any reasonable anarchist I know means by it. It's > not even the original meaning, which is just "no rulers." That's why I > presented those two positions -- no one has a right to rule anyone else and > no one has a duty to obey anyone else. (I got those from Michael Huemer > too. So, I'm not making any claims to being original or innovative.) > > > Thus: there will be governments. Period. And rules for crimes, not > paying taxes and > > the like. (I saw one community fire crew let a house burn down because > the owner > > owed $75 to the fire dept.) People are government, so gov will do > stupid things > > because there are stupid people - no shortage of them. Don't we see > them getting > > elected all the time? > > My guess is the kind of community Dave was talking about -- and he can > correct me where I'm wrong -- is one where no joining wouldn't be a crime. > Also, the likely outcome of not paying the dues would be simply that you > don't get the services. For instance, you decide not to pay for the > security service, then they _might not_ help if your home is burglarized. > > I hope you don't take offense, but since you're a libertarian and read a > lot (more than me, I think:), I'm sure you've read many of the arguments > for market anarchism. All the stuff you're bringing up here are all > introductory level arguments. (Ditto for Adrian who's discussed this before > with me. It seems more like a merry-go-round on this: the same > counterarguments I've read on and off for years now are presented again and > again. And it's not like I've done nothing to respond to them. Add to this, > my responses are ones that are already attested in the anarchist > literature, sometimes for decades now or even longer.) > > Regards, > > Dan > My latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," is free today PDT from: > http://mybook.to/Gurlitt > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 21:12:21 2016 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 17:12:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Will Steinberg wrote: > "Do or don't" > -me > I think you are mis-attributing; that quote is paraphrased from Yoda. From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 21:20:16 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:20:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and recent selection was trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm not sure how much these play in militarism though. After all, if you have a population that's well behaved, they might have good genetics in one sense that makes for higher social cohesion: obedience to authority. (Presuming there's some genetic control there.) If so, then it just takes bad policy to send a very cohesive society down a militaristic path. How so? Most people will obey and you only need a tiny fraction to carry out actual brutality. There seems to be some data that the average person anywhere can be trained to obey to kill someone. Sure, there are outliers, but, again, only a small fraction of the population needs to beat, shoot, or bomb others. (And bombing is actually one of those things that's so remote, I'm betting it's far easier to do without much psychological blockage -- unlike shooting, stabbing, or beating someone.) This is leaving aside the usual problems with evo psych arguments. Regards, Dan Certainly even a very cursory view of the literature on conformity and persuasion can scare the pants off of anyone doubtful that good people can do bad things. Otherwise, I'd be wise to leave this discussion to those of you who are likely (that is, probably all of you) to know more military history than I do, bill w On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:03 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 10:01 AM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Does anyone want to go to war when they are rich? Well, historically, I > suppose > > many did, but now it would just hurt trade. So much interdependency. > > I think there's the paradox that being more market-oriented -- even back > in ancient times -- generates more wealth and that can fund militarism. > Maybe I'm cherry picking examples, but ancient Athens was probably the > wealthiest Greek city-state when it started building its empire. (And I > mean on a per capita basis here. Someone pointed out that in absolute > wealth, the Persian empire probably had more overall wealth, but the > average Persian subject was living at a subsistence level compared to > average Athenian subject who was likely living two times above subsistence > level. So, in Persia, a tiny ruling class was fabulously wealthy, but the > per capita wealth was small, but in Athens there's was more distributed > wealth and per capita wealth was much larger, probably double or more above > that of the Persian or Spartan, etc. Cf. Jonah Ober's _The Rise and Fall of > Classical Greece_ on the wealth comparisons.) > > > There are some very interesting statistics on genetics and crime which > would likely > > startle everyone in this group. Plays a small role at best. > > I'm not sure how much these play in militarism though. After all, if you > have a population that's well behaved, they might have good genetics in one > sense that makes for higher social cohesion: obedience to authority. > (Presuming there's some genetic control there.) If so, then it just takes > bad policy to send a very cohesive society down a militaristic path. How > so? Most people will obey and you only need a tiny fraction to carry out > actual brutality. There seems to be some data that the average person > anywhere can be trained to obey to kill someone. Sure, there are outliers, > but, again, only a small fraction of the population needs to beat, shoot, > or bomb others. (And bombing is actually one of those things that's so > remote, I'm betting it's far easier to do without much psychological > blockage -- unlike shooting, stabbing, or beating someone.) > > This is leaving aside the usual problems with evo psych arguments. > > Regards, > > Dan > My latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," is free today PDT from: > http://mybook.to/Gurlitt > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 21:21:25 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:21:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think you are mis-attributing; that quote is paraphrased from Yoda. Well, what is it? Is it something like; there is no trying; there is just doing. ?? bill w On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:12 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Will Steinberg > wrote: > > "Do or don't" > > -me > > > > I think you are mis-attributing; that quote is paraphrased from Yoda. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 21:34:20 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 17:34:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yeah but Yoda was biased towards doing. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 21:39:19 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 14:39:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 6, 2016 1:32 PM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 1:15 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > On Jun 6, 2016 12:22 PM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: > >> As for predation -- which I take as your real concern here -- why couldn't > >> people defend against this and also coordinate for their defense against this? > > > > Said coordination is a government. > > No, it's not -- unless you're going to define government so broadly that you helping stop someone from being raped makes me a government, in which case, what the hell would anarchy be? You not telling the rapist to stop, for starters. There are quite a few places on Earth, including some in the USA, where a lot of men believe that women should not have the right to say no to sex with them. They would be entirely honest in stating that they believe someone else stopping them is constraining their liberties, and they would support anarchy as allowing them to have sex with whomever they can and wish to get their penis into. > > It involves some people saying what > > others should do, rather than everyone just doing whatever they want. > > People can't do whatever they want under anarchy. After all, by the two (not sole) principles I offered, no one has a right to rule anyone else. What that means in practice is you can't treat others as tools -- raping, killing, enslaving, stealing from, etc. Those would mean ruling over someone else, no? What do you do when some try to use others as tools despite the mutual agreement? Either someone constrains others' liberty to do this, in which case that someone is a government, or predation like this happens. Remember, predators have rights too. And many predators seek to use and twist their rights to protect their predation, so far as it works. What if you and I claim a newly discovered gold mine, that is too small to share or otherwise can not be divided? Who says which of us gets it? And what if we conspire to make it seem like this is the debate, while hiding or destroying all evidence that it actually belongs to some third party? If anyone complains we're stealing, we just twist the debate and show that we're not stealing from each other, loudly asserting this and refusing to acknowledge the notion that we could be stealing from anyone else (because we're not stealing...from each other). > In many, probably most social coordinations, there's no one telling someone else what to do. I'm walking down the sidewalk, for instance, and someone is coming down the same sidewalk. I move to my right and they to theirs. No one told us what to do here. There wasn't a cop involved or no session of the legislature debated and legislated on this. And if the other person is from a culture where one moves left, and sees your move as aggressively blocking that other person's progress? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 22:35:51 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 18:35:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > This is defining government too loosely. I'm fairly sure, too, Dave meant > something where people explicitly consent and aren't forced to participate > -- not something like a modern city where simply by living there some folks > down in city hall tell you what to do and how much you owe them for the > favor under threat of sending an armed gang to lock you in a cage or gun > you down. > Yes, exactly. Like a social contract that is truly optional, rather than forced down your throat. > Let me put this another way: What does anarchy mean to you? Just pure > social chaos? No one cooperating on anything? If so, that's not what I mean > by the term and not what any reasonable anarchist I know means by it. It's > not even the original meaning, which is just "no rulers." That's why I > presented those two positions -- no one has a right to rule anyone else and > no one has a duty to obey anyone else. (I got those from Michael Huemer > too. So, I'm not making any claims to being original or innovative.) > Aren't those equivalent to the Non-Aggression Principle ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)? > My guess is the kind of community Dave was talking about -- and he can > correct me where I'm wrong -- is one where no joining wouldn't be a crime. > Also, the likely outcome of not paying the dues would be simply that you > don't get the services. For instance, you decide not to pay for the > security service, then they _might not_ help if your home is burglarized. > Yeah, or in the case of a closed community, if you don't join and agree to the rules you don't live there. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 22:42:59 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 18:42:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:11 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Does a man rule his family? > No, but parents rule their minor children, in accordance with the law. > What if some yahoo doesn't want to pay for anything, and so he is cut off > from all services. Does that mean that anyone can attack his family? Burn > down his house? Kidnap his kids? What if he is a wife beater? Are we > going to stand for that? What if he is insane? I think that there is a > time to tell people what to do and if they don't, fine them, take away > their family, or put them in jail or an asylum. > All of those have to be agreed upon in advance. If you agree, you're subject to the laws of the land. Then there is the moral aspect: should a person be allowed to enjoy > services without paying? Like a man who won't pay taxes but lives on a > road upkept with taxes? I just don't see anything by anybody in this > discussion that leaves me to believe that any kind of anarchy, short of > living by yourself in a cave, is even possible. If I or we are using an > incorrect definition of anarchy, them let's have one that fits some > rational way of living. > Again, all of that has to be agreed upon in advance: the rules, the penalties, how disputes are settled, etc. Think of a walled community that has its own rules, rule makers, and enforcement, but on a larger scale. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 22:46:40 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 17:46:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Again, all of that has to be agreed upon in advance: the rules, the penalties, how disputes are settled, etc. Think of a walled community that has its own rules, rule makers, and enforcement, but on a larger scale. -Dave Sounds like a government to me. In what respect is this anarchy? bill w On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:42 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:11 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > >> Does a man rule his family? >> > > No, but parents rule their minor children, in accordance with the law. > > >> What if some yahoo doesn't want to pay for anything, and so he is cut off >> from all services. Does that mean that anyone can attack his family? Burn >> down his house? Kidnap his kids? What if he is a wife beater? Are we >> going to stand for that? What if he is insane? I think that there is a >> time to tell people what to do and if they don't, fine them, take away >> their family, or put them in jail or an asylum. >> > > All of those have to be agreed upon in advance. If you agree, you're > subject to the laws of the land. > > Then there is the moral aspect: should a person be allowed to enjoy >> services without paying? Like a man who won't pay taxes but lives on a >> road upkept with taxes? I just don't see anything by anybody in this >> discussion that leaves me to believe that any kind of anarchy, short of >> living by yourself in a cave, is even possible. If I or we are using an >> incorrect definition of anarchy, them let's have one that fits some >> rational way of living. >> > > Again, all of that has to be agreed upon in advance: the rules, the > penalties, how disputes are settled, etc. Think of a walled community that > has its own rules, rule makers, and enforcement, but on a larger scale. > > -Dave > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 22:58:52 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 15:58:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and recent selection was trump Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 1:11 PM, John Clark wrote: snip >>> Nobody knows why but every once in a while highly civilized countries go >>> crazy, >> >> >> ?> ? >> I do. >> > > I didn't predict the rise of Donald Trump. Did you?? Not Trump particularly, but the kind of potential leader he is and the circumstances where a band/tribe/nation would follow him. Gave several historical examples in my writings over the years, Hitler, Pol Pot, the guy who touched off the Rwanda killings. Some of the early observations go clear back in the late 80s. I could go over the details again here, but just about nobody takes this seriously. And frankly if a few or even a lot of people did take it seriously, what could they do? That's the most frustrating aspect of EP, you can understand the problems and what it would take to fix them, nicely even, but I, at least, can't figure out how anyone up to and including the superpowers could do a damn thing about them. . . . . that's not entirely true. Have you ever had a smallpox vaccination? Keith PS. When I was in jail and totally pissed off, I wrote this up as a piece of fiction. A little chunk of it, "Tunnel of Love," was up on the net for something like 9 years, but the entire website went down and it was not backed up on the internet archive so it might be lost. From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 23:04:21 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:04:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <884694E1-6D00-40CC-B553-F32913FFF794@gmail.com> On Jun 6, 2016, at 3:46 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Again, all of that has to be agreed upon in advance: the rules, the penalties, how disputes are settled, etc. Think of a walled community that has its own rules, rule makers, and enforcement, but on a larger scale. > > -Dave > > Sounds like a government to me. In what respect is this anarchy? bill w No tacit consent; no one has a right to rule or a duty to obey anyone else. Obligations are expressly agreed to. See Huemer's book for an explication of this point. Regards, Dan See my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Jun 6 23:12:45 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 16:12:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42EC578C-5CDF-4C3A-9656-43F55DED1DFD@gmail.com> On Jun 6, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > >> On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> This is defining government too loosely. I'm fairly sure, too, Dave meant something where people explicitly consent and aren't forced to participate -- not something like a modern city where simply by living there some folks down in city hall tell you what to do and how much you owe them for the favor under threat of sending an armed gang to lock you in a cage or gun you down. > > Yes, exactly. Like a social contract that is truly optional, rather than forced down your throat. I thought so. I'm still wondering why this is a shocker here. Everyone here by now should understand the idea -- even if they disagree with it -- and the debate should move on to secondary issues. >> Let me put this another way: What does anarchy mean to you? Just pure social chaos? No one cooperating on anything? If so, that's not what I mean by the term and not what any reasonable anarchist I know means by it. It's not even the original meaning, which is just "no rulers." That's why I presented those two positions -- no one has a right to rule anyone else and no one has a duty to obey anyone else. (I got those from Michael Huemer too. So, I'm not making any claims to being original or innovative.) > > Aren't those equivalent to the Non-Aggression Principle (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)? In talking my about the specific wording. We can put this several ways which are all corollaries, such as self-ownership, autonomy, and so forth. I find the two points about rule and duty to be a clearer way of stating the principle to most people. >> My guess is the kind of community Dave was talking about -- and he can correct me where I'm wrong -- is one where no joining wouldn't be a crime. Also, the likely outcome of not paying the dues would be simply that you don't get the services. For instance, you decide not to pay for the security service, then they _might not_ help if your home is burglarized. > > Yeah, or in the case of a closed community, if you don't join and agree to the rules you don't live there. I'd also underscore that no one is initially forced to join a community and exiting one is easy and low cost. No high exit fee that would make a voluntary community the moral equivalent of a state. (Borderline cases might exist, but they needn't refute the general idea. That's to disarm those who want me perfection in any idea -- except for nation states, which somehow are okay to be imperfect. That's a false choice between either a flawless stateless society or a flawed statist one. If anyone here wants to make that kind of argument, I suggest you think of how that would apply to anything else. Else it's simply a double standard.) Regards, Dan My latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," is free today PDT from: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 00:03:37 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 19:03:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and recent selection was trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > I didn't predict the rise of Donald Trump. Did you?? Keith or John One writer said that the Repub people, the base, elected this current group to go to DC and do something about Obamacare and so forth and they didn't do that or much of anything else except stop Obama when they could. Many nonRepubs were outraged by this obstructionism, as was I, and maybe some Repubs were too. So the old saw holds: "Throw the bastards out!" Elect someone not in the pale of the party. I'll bet a lot of people saw someone like Trump coming; someone who is familiar with the rise of George Wallace, Huey and Earl Long, and others. We know Europe is in a spasm of far right ideology, with extremely notable exceptions, like the Muslim mayor of London. Another line is this: Trump shows as a strong man, full of himself, radical opinions - above all someone different from the party mold. I'll bet a lot of his followers do not care what his foreign policies are. Doing a lot of bombing appeals to many. Otherwise, I just dunno. If anyone else has advocated the things he has, he would have been laughed out of the race. I'll bet some of us have been wondering why he hasn't. This is it for me - no more politics till after the election. bill w On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:58 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Sun, Jun 5, 2016 at 1:11 PM, John Clark wrote: > > snip > > >>> Nobody knows why but every once in a while highly civilized countries > go > >>> crazy, > >> > >> > >> ?> ? > >> I do. > >> > > > > I didn't predict the rise of Donald Trump. Did you?? > > Not Trump particularly, but the kind of potential leader he is and the > circumstances where a band/tribe/nation would follow him. Gave > several historical examples in my writings over the years, Hitler, Pol > Pot, the guy who touched off the Rwanda killings. Some of the early > observations go clear back in the late 80s. > > I could go over the details again here, but just about nobody takes > this seriously. And frankly if a few or even a lot of people did take > it seriously, what could they do? That's the most frustrating aspect > of EP, you can understand the problems and what it would take to fix > them, nicely even, but I, at least, can't figure out how anyone up to > and including the superpowers could do a damn thing about them. > > . . . . that's not entirely true. Have you ever had a smallpox > vaccination? > > Keith > PS. When I was in jail and totally pissed off, I wrote this up as a > piece of fiction. A little chunk of it, "Tunnel of Love," was up on > the net for something like 9 years, but the entire website went down > and it was not backed up on the internet archive so it might be lost. > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 00:08:08 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 17:08:08 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anarchy Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:20 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: snip > There seems to be some data that the average person > anywhere can be trained to obey to kill someone. Consider Rwanda or Cambodia. Particularly Rwanda. Who trained anyone to kill people with machetes? Think about a behavioral switch, lots of examples, but I like the locust one. "Overloading the environment is *not* a new human trait. *Chimps* do it. I think any [social] animal whose numbers are not checked by predation is going to have wars--you have to be your own part time predator when the environment gets overloaded. And the key to this is a behavioral switch. We *know* that genes can switch behavior on the basis of environmental signals. For example we know exactly what stimulation switches the solitary grasshopper into the migratory locust developmental pathway." http://www.churchofvirus.org/bbs/index.php?board=61;action=display;threadid=30624 > Sure, there are outliers, Kill them first. Keith From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 00:13:51 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 19:13:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: <42EC578C-5CDF-4C3A-9656-43F55DED1DFD@gmail.com> References: <42EC578C-5CDF-4C3A-9656-43F55DED1DFD@gmail.com> Message-ID: ; no one has a right to rule or a duty to obey anyone else dan If there are rules, there are enforcers. Enforcers rule; they can tell people what to do. People who do not obey are dealt with in some form. Nah, I don't think I will read this book or participate in this discussion further. It's going nowhere, and nobody is going to start an anarchical society anywhere near here in the forseeable future. So for me, it's just a play idea, like PLato's. Nobody thought that Plato was serious, did they? (for a scifi take on that, read Jo Walton's trilogy about philosopher kings) bill w On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 6:12 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Jun 6, 2016, at 3:35 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:48 PM, Dan TheBookMan > wrote: > >> This is defining government too loosely. I'm fairly sure, too, Dave meant >> something where people explicitly consent and aren't forced to participate >> -- not something like a modern city where simply by living there some folks >> down in city hall tell you what to do and how much you owe them for the >> favor under threat of sending an armed gang to lock you in a cage or gun >> you down. >> > > Yes, exactly. Like a social contract that is truly optional, rather than > forced down your throat. > > > I thought so. I'm still wondering why this is a shocker here. Everyone > here by now should understand the idea -- even if they disagree with it -- > and the debate should move on to secondary issues. > > Let me put this another way: What does anarchy mean to you? Just pure >> social chaos? No one cooperating on anything? If so, that's not what I mean >> by the term and not what any reasonable anarchist I know means by it. It's >> not even the original meaning, which is just "no rulers." That's why I >> presented those two positions -- no one has a right to rule anyone else and >> no one has a duty to obey anyone else. (I got those from Michael Huemer >> too. So, I'm not making any claims to being original or innovative.) >> > > Aren't those equivalent to the Non-Aggression Principle ( > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-aggression_principle)? > > > In talking my about the specific wording. We can put this several ways > which are all corollaries, such as self-ownership, autonomy, and so forth. > I find the two points about rule and duty to be a clearer way of stating > the principle to most people. > > My guess is the kind of community Dave was talking about -- and he can >> correct me where I'm wrong -- is one where no joining wouldn't be a crime. >> Also, the likely outcome of not paying the dues would be simply that you >> don't get the services. For instance, you decide not to pay for the >> security service, then they _might not_ help if your home is burglarized. >> > > Yeah, or in the case of a closed community, if you don't join and agree to > the rules you don't live there. > > > I'd also underscore that no one is initially forced to join a community > and exiting one is easy and low cost. No high exit fee that would make a > voluntary community the moral equivalent of a state. (Borderline cases > might exist, but they needn't refute the general idea. That's to disarm > those who want me perfection in any idea -- except for nation states, which > somehow are okay to be imperfect. That's a false choice between either a > flawless stateless society or a flawed statist one. If anyone here wants to > make that kind of argument, I suggest you think of how that would apply to > anything else. Else it's simply a double standard.) > > Regards, > > Dan > My latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," is free today PDT from: > http://mybook.to/Gurlitt > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 01:13:12 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 20:13:12 -0500 Subject: [ExI] libertarian party Message-ID: People who devote their greatest passion to the cause of legalizing drugs, challenging the age of consent, and removing limitations on the ownership of fully automatic weaponry are not really in the business of attracting a broader following. As a political party, the Libertarians have always been more party than political. here's the whole article: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/libertarians_are_blowing_a_huge_opportunity_in_2016.html -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 01:21:42 2016 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 21:21:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 5:21 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I think you are mis-attributing; that quote is paraphrased from Yoda. > > Well, what is it? Is it something like; there is no trying; there is just > doing. ?? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQ4yd2W50No "Do or do not, there is no try" From spike66 at att.net Tue Jun 7 01:31:55 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 6 Jun 2016 18:31:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] libertarian party In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002c01d1c05c$60e7e730$22b7b590$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: [ExI] libertarian party People who devote their greatest passion to the cause of legalizing drugs, challenging the age of consent, and removing limitations on the ownership of fully automatic weaponry are not really in the business of attracting a broader following. As a political party, the Libertarians have always been more party than political. here's the whole article: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/06/libertarians_are_blowing_a_huge_opportunity_in_2016.html Ja. I have never had much reason to doubt the conventional wisdom, that third parties can never win, that Libertarians are not really about winning so much as hoisting both parties upward, that sort of thing. But this is such an oddball year, when America woke up one day and realized both mainstream parties had made deplorable choices, both choosing reprehensible characters. Suddenly the LP had a big opportunity. Then they immediately set about cheerfully squandering it. It is the classic case of the old hound dog chasing cars for years, then having no idea what to do when one day he unexpectedly catches one. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 08:41:42 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 04:41:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Will Steinberg wrote: > Yeah Bill beat me to it. Communicating and cooperating is government. > ### ROFLMAO Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 16:06:54 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 09:06:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Critical take on The Age of Em Message-ID: <872591BD-C19F-494C-8249-AC92B1B08B19@gmail.com> http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/06/whats_wrong_in.html I haven't read the book, though, regarding Bryan Caplan's first point, I don't see anything wrong with adopting a particular position and running with it. Minor point: Bryan and I also have a different view of Shakespeare. For me, some of the Bard's characters are opaque -- still enjoyable, yet very hard to grasp. Lear and Iago, for instance. Anyhow, should probably get to The Age of Em in a few weeks. Regards, Dan See my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From protokol2020 at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 18:40:44 2016 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 20:40:44 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Critical take on The Age of Em In-Reply-To: <872591BD-C19F-494C-8249-AC92B1B08B19@gmail.com> References: <872591BD-C19F-494C-8249-AC92B1B08B19@gmail.com> Message-ID: Mostly silly critique by my view. (A critique, isn't itself above critique.) This Caplan has no clue. On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 6:06 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/06/whats_wrong_in.html > > I haven't read the book, though, regarding Bryan Caplan's first point, I > don't see anything wrong with adopting a particular position and running > with it. > > Minor point: Bryan and I also have a different view of Shakespeare. For > me, some of the Bard's characters are opaque -- still enjoyable, yet very > hard to grasp. Lear and Iago, for instance. > > Anyhow, should probably get to The Age of Em in a few weeks. > > Regards, > > Dan > See my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: > http://mybook.to/Gurlitt > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Jun 7 19:22:04 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 12:22:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Critical take on The Age of Em In-Reply-To: References: <872591BD-C19F-494C-8249-AC92B1B08B19@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jun 7, 2016, at 11:40 AM, Tomaz Kristan wrote: > Mostly silly critique by my view. Seems so. > (A critique, isn't itself above critique.) Not sure if anyone has ever claimed otherwise. > This Caplan has no clue. I wouldn't go that far. I think Bryan rushed to review the book. Anyhow, good to see Em is getting attention. Anyone here it read it? Regards, Dan See my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sjv2006 at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 03:10:39 2016 From: sjv2006 at gmail.com (Stephen Van Sickle) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 20:10:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and recent selection was trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > 70 years ago Germany and Japan were the most militaristic countries in the world, now they may be the least militaristic. ? Too early to tell. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 03:53:26 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 7 Jun 2016 20:53:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and recent selection was trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 8:10 PM, Stephen Van Sickle wrote: >> 70 years ago Germany and Japan were the most militaristic countries >> in the world, now they may be the least militaristic. > > Too early to tell. I wouldn't put much stock in that either. Post-WW2, both those nations were occupied and the postwar world was very different -- going from a multipolar world to a bipolar one (and now to a unipolar one or is that over?). By the way, what's the measure of militarism here? I'm not saying the governments of Germany and Japan prior and during WW2 were not militaristic. They definitely were, though the governments that defeated Germany in both wars and Japan in WW2 were also fairly militaristic. The US, UK, France, the Russian Empire (and then then Soviet Union*) were no strangers to war. Also, I'm not sure we have a good handle here whether this is under genetic control and that these wars had that specific impact. Certainly, that Germany lost many soldiers in WW1, then started an even bigger war two decades later might tell against it, no? At least, prima facie. Regards, Dan See my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt * Think Russian Civil War. That alone should tell us something. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From protokol2020 at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 06:48:42 2016 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 08:48:42 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Critical take on The Age of Em In-Reply-To: References: <872591BD-C19F-494C-8249-AC92B1B08B19@gmail.com> Message-ID: I didn't read the book. But I know something about it by reading some discussions about it. My main objection is that some WBE would develop a non-human-brains-based-super-intelligence quite fast. And from there on, everything would change. I don't think however, that just because of that the book isn't very interesting. I'll read it one day. I would like to see the movie, too! On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Jun 7, 2016, at 11:40 AM, Tomaz Kristan wrote: > > Mostly silly critique by my view. > > > Seems so. > > (A critique, isn't itself above critique.) > > > Not sure if anyone has ever claimed otherwise. > > This Caplan has no clue. > > > I wouldn't go that far. I think Bryan rushed to review the book. > > Anyhow, good to see Em is getting attention. Anyone here it read it? > > Regards, > > Dan > See my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: > http://mybook.to/Gurlitt > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From giulio at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 07:22:35 2016 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 09:22:35 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Critical take on The Age of Em In-Reply-To: References: <872591BD-C19F-494C-8249-AC92B1B08B19@gmail.com> Message-ID: I like Robin?s book but disagree on one key assumption. Robin thinks that mind uploading is likely to be developed much before sentient AI. I think the two are likely to develop at comparable paces with strong feedback loops, with advances in one stimulating advances in the other (or roadblocks in one creating roadblocks in the other) and reach operational maturity at more or less the same time near the end of the century, give or take a couple of decades. Robin?s scenario is believable if uploading comes soon and sentient AI never follows, but I think his assumption is wrong. In my favorite scenario, human uploads and AIs co-evolve. On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Tomaz Kristan wrote: > I didn't read the book. But I know something about it by reading some > discussions about it. > > My main objection is that some WBE would develop a > non-human-brains-based-super-intelligence quite fast. And from there on, > everything would change. > > I don't think however, that just because of that the book isn't very > interesting. I'll read it one day. I would like to see the movie, too! > > > > On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> >> On Jun 7, 2016, at 11:40 AM, Tomaz Kristan wrote: >> >> Mostly silly critique by my view. >> >> >> Seems so. >> >> (A critique, isn't itself above critique.) >> >> >> Not sure if anyone has ever claimed otherwise. >> >> This Caplan has no clue. >> >> >> I wouldn't go that far. I think Bryan rushed to review the book. >> >> Anyhow, good to see Em is getting attention. Anyone here it read it? >> >> Regards, >> >> Dan >> See my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: >> http://mybook.to/Gurlitt >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > > -- > https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Jun 8 01:13:36 2016 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin D Hanson) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 01:13:36 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Critical take on The Age of Em In-Reply-To: References: <872591BD-C19F-494C-8249-AC92B1B08B19@gmail.com> Message-ID: <53947B0E-67C0-4282-959A-06525952316F@gmu.edu> On Jun 7, 2016, at 3:22 PM, Dan TheBookMan > wrote: On Jun 7, 2016, at 11:40 AM, Tomaz Kristan > wrote: Mostly silly critique by my view. Seems so. (A critique, isn't itself above critique.) Not sure if anyone has ever claimed otherwise. This Caplan has no clue. I wouldn't go that far. I think Bryan rushed to review the book. Anyhow, good to see Em is getting attention. Anyone here it read it? I suppose I count as having read it, but not as an independent evaluator. :) Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu Future of Humanity Inst., Oxford University Assoc. Prof. Economics, George Mason University See my new book: http://ageofem.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Wed Jun 8 11:30:03 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:30:03 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Critical take on The Age of Em In-Reply-To: <872591BD-C19F-494C-8249-AC92B1B08B19@gmail.com> References: <872591BD-C19F-494C-8249-AC92B1B08B19@gmail.com> Message-ID: I think a lot of reviews are like "yes, but..." - this is a book full of things, and you get plenty to disagree with. My own review, where I predict it will be a classic: http://aleph.se/andart2/reviews/review-of-robin-hansons-the-age-of-em/ On 2016-06-07 17:06, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/06/whats_wrong_in.html > > I haven't read the book, though, regarding Bryan Caplan's first point, > I don't see anything wrong with adopting a particular position and > running with it. > > Minor point: Bryan and I also have a different view of Shakespeare. > For me, some of the Bard's characters are opaque -- still enjoyable, > yet very hard to grasp. Lear and Iago, for instance. > > Anyhow, should probably get to The Age of Em in a few weeks. > > Regards, > > Dan > See my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: > http://mybook.to/Gurlitt > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 16:48:41 2016 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 18:48:41 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The Age of Em - Robin Hanson in Second Life, June 26 Message-ID: The Age of Em - Robin Hanson in Second Life, June 26 At the next Turing Church meeting in Second Life on Sunday, June 26, Robin Hanson will present his new book ?The Age of Em: Work, Love and Life when Robots Rule the Earth.? The presentation will be followed by a discussion... http://turingchurch.com/2016/06/08/the-age-of-em-robin-hanson-in-second-life-june-26/ From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 17:05:38 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 12:05:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] a little fun - being contrary Message-ID: I have always been a contrarian/nonconformist, wondering why I had to do what I was told, whether at home, in school, or wherever. I would have been a disaster in the military. The military boot camp is designed to get to you obey orders no matter what. So they have you dig a ditch then fill it up. Your orders come from someone on whom you have an IQ edge by 50 points or more. It's just insane, but that's the way they design it. In a war you cannot question orders (though like in Viet Nam you can shoot the new second lieutenant who is giving them to veteran soldiers). I started early. Mama told a story on me. When I was about 3 or so, I turned to her and said "Women don't tell men what to do." Mama said she had to hold her hand to her mouth so I couldn't see her smile. Even then I was a perceptive observer of human relationships. Dad wore the pants. Now I wonder if some of this contrariness is at the basis of hatred of laws and rules and institutions that enforce them. Few people are happy with their government and think they could do it better. Or they just want to be left alone. They know what to do - no one has to order them to do the right thing. They know what that is. It takes more government services to deal with people who are badly injured or dead than people who aren't. Thus it takes money out of everyone's pocket when a biker, say, didn't wear a helmet and suffered far worse injuries in a wreck than he would have with one. If he died government may have to take care of his family. Thus it is in everyone's interest that he wear one. Ditto laws for seatbelts. But for some people, it just grates that they are told what to do even thought it can be proved that it is better for society. This, I think, is childish. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 17:08:16 2016 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 19:08:16 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Critical take on The Age of Em In-Reply-To: References: <872591BD-C19F-494C-8249-AC92B1B08B19@gmail.com> Message-ID: The Age of Em - Robin Hanson in Second Life, June 26 At the next Turing Church meeting in Second Life on Sunday, June 26, Robin Hanson will present his new book ?The Age of Em: Work, Love and Life when Robots Rule the Earth.? The presentation will be followed by a discussion... http://turingchurch.com/2016/06/08/the-age-of-em-robin-hanson-in-second-life-june-26/ On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 1:30 PM, Anders wrote: > I think a lot of reviews are like "yes, but..." - this is a book full of > things, and you get plenty to disagree with. > > My own review, where I predict it will be a classic: > http://aleph.se/andart2/reviews/review-of-robin-hansons-the-age-of-em/ > > > On 2016-06-07 17:06, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > > http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/2016/06/whats_wrong_in.html > > I haven't read the book, though, regarding Bryan Caplan's first point, I > don't see anything wrong with adopting a particular position and running > with it. > > Minor point: Bryan and I also have a different view of Shakespeare. For me, > some of the Bard's characters are opaque -- still enjoyable, yet very hard > to grasp. Lear and Iago, for instance. > > Anyhow, should probably get to The Age of Em in a few weeks. > > Regards, > > Dan > See my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: > http://mybook.to/Gurlitt > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > -- > Dr Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Oxford University > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 8 17:34:23 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 13:34:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Evolutionary psychology and recent selection was trump In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 Stephen Van Sickle wrote: > > >> ?>? >> 70 years ago Germany and Japan were the most militaristic countries in >> the world, now they may be the least militaristic. ? > > ?> ? > Too early to tell. ?Perhaps so. Donald wants both those countries to have H-bombs, ?as well as South Korea and *Saudi Arabia*. Donald's prescription for peace is make new enemies, anger your friends, and encourage everyone to make nuclear weapons. Even *REPUBLICAN* Senator ?Mark Kirk ? has concluded: "*Given my military experience, Donald Trump does not have the temperament to command our military or our nuclear arsenal.*" ?And that is a understatement if I ever heard one! John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Jun 8 19:54:25 2016 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin D Hanson) Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 19:54:25 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Critical take on The Age of Em In-Reply-To: References: <872591BD-C19F-494C-8249-AC92B1B08B19@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Jun 8, 2016, at 3:22 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > I like Robin?s book but disagree on one key assumption. Robin thinks > that mind uploading is likely to be developed much before sentient AI. If the future is important enough to make it worth having one hundred books on future scenarios, then it is worth having a book on a scenario with only a 1% chance. We shouldn?t let disagreements over the exact probabilities of different scenarios distract us from exploring many likely scenarios. > I think the two are likely to develop at comparable paces with strong > feedback loops, with advances in one stimulating advances in the other > (or roadblocks in one creating roadblocks in the other) and reach > operational maturity at more or less the same time near the end of the > century, give or take a couple of decades. Robin?s scenario is > believable if uploading comes soon and sentient AI never follows, but > I think his assumption is wrong. In my favorite scenario, human > uploads and AIs co-evolve. I certainly don?t claim that ?sentient AI never follows.? > > On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Tomaz Kristan wrote: >> I didn't read the book. But I know something about it by reading some >> discussions about it. >> >> My main objection is that some WBE would develop a >> non-human-brains-based-super-intelligence quite fast. And from there on, >> everything would change. >> >> I don't think however, that just because of that the book isn't very >> interesting. I'll read it one day. I would like to see the movie, too! >> >> >> >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >>> >>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 11:40 AM, Tomaz Kristan wrote: >>> >>> Mostly silly critique by my view. >>> >>> >>> Seems so. >>> >>> (A critique, isn't itself above critique.) >>> >>> >>> Not sure if anyone has ever claimed otherwise. >>> >>> This Caplan has no clue. >>> >>> >>> I wouldn't go that far. I think Bryan rushed to review the book. >>> >>> Anyhow, good to see Em is getting attention. Anyone here it read it? >>> >>> Regards, >>> >>> Dan >>> See my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: >>> http://mybook.to/Gurlitt >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >> >> >> >> -- >> https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu Future of Humanity Inst., Oxford University Assoc. Prof. Economics, George Mason University See my new book: http://ageofem.com From giulio at gmail.com Thu Jun 9 13:53:31 2016 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 15:53:31 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Critical take on The Age of Em In-Reply-To: References: <872591BD-C19F-494C-8249-AC92B1B08B19@gmail.com> Message-ID: Re "We shouldn?t let disagreements over the exact probabilities of different scenarios distract us from exploring many likely scenarios." Of course, and you have written a great book (I am re-reading it now) about one possible scenario. I only wish I had the skill to write a book half as good about my favorite scenario. On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 9:54 PM, Robin D Hanson wrote: > On Jun 8, 2016, at 3:22 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: >> I like Robin?s book but disagree on one key assumption. Robin thinks >> that mind uploading is likely to be developed much before sentient AI. > > If the future is important enough to make it worth having one hundred books on future scenarios, then it is worth having a book on a scenario with only a 1% chance. We shouldn?t let disagreements over the exact probabilities of different scenarios distract us from exploring many likely scenarios. > >> I think the two are likely to develop at comparable paces with strong >> feedback loops, with advances in one stimulating advances in the other >> (or roadblocks in one creating roadblocks in the other) and reach >> operational maturity at more or less the same time near the end of the >> century, give or take a couple of decades. Robin?s scenario is >> believable if uploading comes soon and sentient AI never follows, but >> I think his assumption is wrong. In my favorite scenario, human >> uploads and AIs co-evolve. > > I certainly don?t claim that ?sentient AI never follows.? > >> >> On Wed, Jun 8, 2016 at 8:48 AM, Tomaz Kristan wrote: >>> I didn't read the book. But I know something about it by reading some >>> discussions about it. >>> >>> My main objection is that some WBE would develop a >>> non-human-brains-based-super-intelligence quite fast. And from there on, >>> everything would change. >>> >>> I don't think however, that just because of that the book isn't very >>> interesting. I'll read it one day. I would like to see the movie, too! >>> >>> >>> >>> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:22 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >>>> >>>> On Jun 7, 2016, at 11:40 AM, Tomaz Kristan wrote: >>>> >>>> Mostly silly critique by my view. >>>> >>>> >>>> Seems so. >>>> >>>> (A critique, isn't itself above critique.) >>>> >>>> >>>> Not sure if anyone has ever claimed otherwise. >>>> >>>> This Caplan has no clue. >>>> >>>> >>>> I wouldn't go that far. I think Bryan rushed to review the book. >>>> >>>> Anyhow, good to see Em is getting attention. Anyone here it read it? >>>> >>>> Regards, >>>> >>>> Dan >>>> See my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: >>>> http://mybook.to/Gurlitt >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/ >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > > Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu > Future of Humanity Inst., Oxford University > Assoc. Prof. Economics, George Mason University > See my new book: http://ageofem.com > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 9 20:08:17 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 16:08:17 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=8BPopper_and_unscientific_theories?= Message-ID: ?The philosopher Karl ? Popper ?said? a theory is unscientific if it makes a prediction that can't ?be ? falsified ?regardless of how good experimenters become,? ? but what ?if? a theory that makes lots of predictions that could have been proven false but ?weren't and ? instead were ? confirmed? , ?but? ?the same theory ? also makes some predictions that can't be falsified? ?Should we just pretend those predictions don't exist? ? The Big Bang Theory makes a lot of predictions that have been confirmed and one of them is that the universe is 13.8 billion years old ?, and so regardless of where we point out telescopes ?it predicts ? we ?can? never see anything more distant than 13.8 billion years. And ?indeed? our telescopes ?have never ? see ?n anything more distant than 13.8 billion years. T here are only 2 conclusion ?s? that can be? draw ?n? from ?that ? observation: 1) There ?are? lots of stars more distant than 13.8 billion ?light ? years but we'll never be able to see ?them? ?because light hasn't had enough time to reach us and due to the accelerating universe there will never be enough time to reach us. ? 2) ?Nothing exists that is more distant than 13.8 billion light years and ?t he Earth is at the center of the Universe. Despite what Popper might say I think #1 is the more scientific conclusion. In a similar way Everett's Many Worlds Theory does such a good job explaining how the 2 slit experiment ?works? ? I don't think it's unscientific to conclude other worlds might exist. ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Jun 9 21:08:02 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 14:08:02 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=8BPopper_and_unscientific_theories?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 1:08 PM, John Clark wrote: > The philosopher Karl Popper said > a theory is unscientific if it makes a prediction that can't > be falsified > regardless of how good experimenters become, > but what if > a theory that makes lots of predictions that could have been proven false but > weren't and instead were confirmed, but > the same theory > also makes some predictions that can't be falsified? > Should we just pretend those predictions don't exist? > The Big Bang Theory makes a lot of predictions that have been confirmed > and one of them is that the universe is 13.8 billion years old > , > and so regardless of where we point out telescopes > it predicts we can > never see anything more distant than 13.8 billion years. And > indeed our telescopes have never > see n anything more distant than 13.8 billion years. T > here are only 2 conclusions > that can be drawn from that observation: > > 1) There are > lots of stars more distant than 13.8 billion > light years but we'll never be able to see > them because light hasn't had enough time to reach > us and due to the accelerating universe there will never > be enough time to reach us. Never say never. :) > 2) > Nothing exists that is more distant than 13.8 billion light years and t > he Earth is at the center of the Universe. I think that would be the road strict positivists might take -- or something like it. Maybe something along the lines of, If you can't observe it, it's not meaningless to discuss it. > Despite what Popper might say I think #1 is the more scientific conclusion. > In a similar way Everett's Many Worlds Theory does such a good job > explaining how the 2 slit experiment works > I don't think it's unscientific to conclude other worlds might exist. I don't agree with Popper's solution to the demarcation problem, but what makes you think one is scientific and the other not? It seems like you're just arguing that it sounds good to you. (And, unlike positivists, I've no problem with positing unobservables.) The issue would be why it sounds good and what makes it so. I won't fault you for not having a ready answer to this because it enters the dense thicket of philosophy of science, something that's been debated now for several centuries. Regards, Dan See my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From col.hales at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 01:57:33 2016 From: col.hales at gmail.com (Colin Hales) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 11:57:33 +1000 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=8BPopper_and_unscientific_theories?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Here's another theory that sits astride this Popperian jibberjabber. H1 = "There is no brain physics essential to the perfect functional replication of a brain in any/all learning/knowledge contexts" TestA_H1 = throw away all brain physics and compute models of brain physics. Traditional computer substrates and neuromorphic non-von-Neumann substrates .... all throw away the physics. The physics of the chip is the physics of a model, not the physics in the brain that behaves according to the model. I am not saying H1 is true or false. I am saying that the testing is faulty. This has been going on in AI for nearly exactly 60 years (60 year anniversary of Dartmouth in July!). Has H1 been 'proved' ? Nope. Narrow AI every time. Yet H1 remains universally assumed by everyone over generations to the point where, as science, AI is a Popperian miscreant of the John Clark kind. H1 may be true! But the proper testing of H1 has not begun. Consider the equivalent claim to H1 in another area: flight. H2 = "There is no flight physics essential to the perfect functional replication of flight (actual flying)" But we tested this properly. Proved it false. If you delete all physics and compute a model you get a flight simulator, not actual flight. If a flight simulator is not actual flight, then why do we assume that a brain simulator is a brain? Without any principle other than an intuition? And then never actually test it! Is AI not AI at all, but merely a computational study of intelligence in exactly the same way a flight simulator is a computational study of flight? Well you'll never know if you never actually test for essential physics, will you? The 'science' of AI is unscientific in the sense Popper meant. But it's not broken science because it's impossible to be a proper science. It's merely a methodologically broken science because the proper testing never gets done. I can see a TestB_H1 that fixes it. Maybe you can too. I have been saying this since 2003. When is the penny gonna drop? How many billion server farm clouds does it take to prove H1 either way? The mother of all instances of popperian science cockups is that science itself is not taught or understood properly or consistently. Ask 20 people what science is and you'll get at least 20 feral and different answers. Why is that? Don't we know? colin On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 6:08 AM, John Clark wrote: > ?The philosopher Karl ? > Popper > ?said? > a theory is unscientific if it makes a prediction that can't > ?be ? > falsified > ?regardless of how good experimenters become,? > ? > but what > ?if? > a theory that makes lots of predictions that could have been proven false > but > ?weren't and ? > instead were > ? confirmed? > , > ?but? > > ?the same theory ? > also makes some predictions that can't be falsified? > ?Should we just pretend those predictions don't exist? ? > The Big Bang Theory makes a lot of predictions that have been confirmed > and one of them is that the universe is 13.8 billion years old > ?, > and so regardless of where we point out telescopes > ?it predicts ? > we > ?can? > never see anything more distant than 13.8 billion years. And > ?indeed? > our telescopes > ?have never ? > see > ?n anything more distant than 13.8 billion years. T > here are only 2 conclusion > ?s? > that can be? > draw > ?n? > from > ?that ? > observation: > > 1) There > ?are? > lots of stars more distant than 13.8 billion > ?light ? > years but we'll never be able to see > ?them? > > ?because light hasn't had enough time to reach us and due to the > accelerating universe there will never be enough time to reach us. > > ? > 2) > ?Nothing exists that is more distant than 13.8 billion light years and ?t > he Earth is at the center of the Universe. > > Despite what Popper might say I think #1 is the more scientific > conclusion. In a similar way Everett's Many Worlds Theory does such a good > job explaining how the 2 slit experiment > ?works? > ? > I don't think it's unscientific to conclude other worlds might exist. > > ? John K Clark? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Fri Jun 10 07:11:08 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 08:11:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] AI written movie Message-ID: A while ago we talked about using AI methods to make stories or movies. Here is a real example: http://arstechnica.com/the-multiverse/2016/06/an-ai-wrote-this-movie-and-its-strangely-moving/ https://thescene.com/watch/arstechnica/sunspring-sci-fi-short-film?source=player_scene_logo -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From sparge at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 14:59:29 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 10:59:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] AI written movie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 3:11 AM, Anders wrote: > A while ago we talked about using AI methods to make stories or movies. > Here is a real example: > > > http://arstechnica.com/the-multiverse/2016/06/an-ai-wrote-this-movie-and-its-strangely-moving/ > > https://thescene.com/watch/arstechnica/sunspring-sci-fi-short-film?source=player_scene_logo > Yikes, that's horrible. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 15:29:20 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 11:29:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:57 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?> ? > One argument seems to settle this issue: if there is no government of any > kind, then there is no police force of any kind. > ? ? > If no one can be told what to do or restrained from doing it, then you > have chaos and rule of the mighty, who then will tell people what to do. > QED > ? Not necessarily, there are other and probably better ways society could be organized ?,? but ?at this late date ? getting from here to there would be astronomically difficult and perhaps impossible. The idea behind Anarcho-Capitalism ? ? is ? ? there would still be police and there would still be ? ? law, but it would be private police and private law. PPL's (privately produced ? ? law) in ?an ? anarchic world would ? ? have private protection agencies (PPA's) to ? ? back them up. Disputes among PPA's would be settled by an independent ? ? arbitrator agreed to by both parties BEFORE the disagreement happened. ? ? Something like that can happen today. When companies sign complicated ? ? contracts they sometimes also agree on who will arbitrate it if differences in interpretation ? ? happen ?s? . Nobody ? ? wants ? to get caught up in the slow, expensive court ? ?system run by governments. The arbitrator would be paid by the case, ? ? and because he is picked by both sides, it's in his interest to be as just as ? ? possible. If he favored one side over another or made brutal or stupid ? ? decisions he would not be picked again and would need to look for a new line ? ? of work. Unlike present day judges and juries, justice would have a positive ? ? survival value for the arbitrator. ? ? Today ?a bad judge makes just as much money as a good judge, but a good arbitrator makes far more money than a bad arbitrator. All parties would have a reason to avoid violence if possible. The disputing parties would not want to turn their front yard into a war zone, and violence is expensive. The successful protection agencies would be more interested in making money than saving face. Most of the time this would work so I expect ? ? the total level of violence to be less than what we have now, but I'm not such a utopian as to suggest it will drop to zero. Even when force is not used the implicit threat is always there, another good reason to be civilized. I'm not talking about justice only for the rich. If a rich man's PPA makes unreasonable demands (beatings, sidewalk justice, I insist on my mother being the judge if I get into trouble) it's going to need one hell of a lot of firepower to back it up. That kind of an army is expensive because of the hardware needed and because of the very high wages it will need to pay its employees for an extremely dangerous job. To pay for all this they will need to charge their clients enormous fees severely limiting their customer base and that means even higher charges. They could ? ? never get the upper hand, because the common man's PPA would be able to outspend a PPA that had outrageous demands and was just for the super rich. A yacht cost a lot more than a car, yet the Ford motor Company is far richer than all the yacht builders on the planet combined. No system can guarantee justice to everybody all the time but you'd have the greatest chance of finding it in Anarcho ?-? capitalism. In a dictatorship one man's whim can lead to hell on earth, I don't see how 40 million Germans could have ? ? murdered 6 million Jews in a Anarcho-capitalistic world. Things ? ? aren't much better in a Democracy, 51% can decide to kill the other 49% , nothing even close to that is possible in Anarchy ,even theoretically. In general, the desire not to be killed is much stronger than the desire to kill a stranger, even a Jewish stranger. Jews would be willing to pay as much as necessary, up to and including their entire net worth not to be killed. I doubt if even the most rabid anti Semite would go much beyond 2%. As a result the PPA protecting Jews would be much stronger than the one that wants to kill them. In Anarchy, for things that are REALLY important to you (like not getting killed) you have much more influence than just one man one vote. ?If we were starting from square one the above is what I would recommend,? ?but we are very very far from square one so we just have to do the best we can with what we've got. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 15:52:43 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 11:52:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] AI written movie In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm fairly certain that this film is what initiated that discussion in the first place. Either that or I'm having deja vu; or, I am clairvoyant. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 16:48:28 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 11:48:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ?If we were starting from square one the above is what I would recommend,? ?but we are very very far from square one so we just have to do the best we can with what we've got. John K Clark Fantasizing is fun but problems always arise that have been unseen in the planning. (Those unknown unknowns.) What you say might work and it might be a nightmare of payoffs and corruption; that is, not a lot different from what we have now, only worse. Again, I am no student of history, but what you suggest sounds like Italy around 1500: clans and their military enforced things; no overarching gov. How well did that work? I suspect that wars were fairly constant. Might makes right. I am against punishment, mostly, for children - if it's the belt kind. Taking away privileges works much better for many reasons. But if you want to get rid of corruption you have to penalize and heavily. Quick and devastatingly hard punishment will stop the behavior more quickly than anything. Chopping off hands for a bit of shoplifting seems extremely harsh, but it's the right idea if the wrong method. Not to re-enter that discussion, but the biggest problem with Wall Street and collapse of 2008 was that there were few if any penalties, much less harsh ones. So why not do it again? They will. Oh yes, they will. The incentives to do so are billions of dollars. Measure that against a jail term of a few years, and probably not for the top people. On a related note, I read that many companies are getting into finance and out of providing services and products. Doesn't sound good, but what do I know? Seems private debt is getting worse than national debt. bill w On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 10:29 AM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 6, 2016 at 2:57 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > ?> ? >> One argument seems to settle this issue: if there is no government of >> any kind, then there is no police force of any kind. >> ? ? >> If no one can be told what to do or restrained from doing it, then you >> have chaos and rule of the mighty, who then will tell people what to do. >> QED >> > > > ? > Not necessarily, there are other and probably better ways society could be > organized > ?,? > but > ?at this late date ? > getting from here to there would be astronomically difficult and perhaps > impossible. The idea behind Anarcho-Capitalism > ? ? > is > ? ? > there would still be police and there would still be > ? ? > law, but it would be private police and private law. PPL's (privately > produced > ? ? > law) in > ?an ? > anarchic world would > ? ? > have private protection agencies (PPA's) to > ? ? > back them up. Disputes among PPA's would be settled by an independent > ? ? > arbitrator agreed to by both parties BEFORE the disagreement happened. > ? ? > Something like that can happen today. When companies sign complicated > ? ? > contracts they sometimes also agree on who will arbitrate it if > differences in interpretation > ? ? > happen > ?s? > . Nobody > ? ? > wants > ? to > get caught up in the slow, expensive court > ? ?system > run by governments. The arbitrator would be paid by the case, > ? ? > and because he is picked by both sides, it's in his interest to be as just > as > ? ? > possible. If he favored one side over another or made brutal or stupid > ? ? > decisions he would not be picked again and would need to look for a new > line > ? ? > of work. Unlike present day judges and juries, justice would have a > positive > ? ? > survival value for the arbitrator. > ? ? > Today ?a > bad judge makes just as much money as a good judge, but a good arbitrator > makes far more money than a bad arbitrator. > > All parties would have a reason to avoid violence if possible. The > disputing parties would not want to turn their front yard into a war zone, > and violence is expensive. The successful protection agencies would be more > interested in making money than saving face. Most of the time this would > work so I expect > ? ? > the total level of violence to be less than what we have now, but I'm not > such a utopian as to suggest it will drop to zero. Even when force is not > used the implicit threat is always there, another good reason to be > civilized. > > I'm not talking about justice only for the rich. If a rich man's PPA makes > unreasonable demands (beatings, sidewalk justice, I insist on my mother > being the judge if I get into trouble) it's going to need one hell of a > lot of firepower to back it up. That kind of an army is expensive because > of the hardware needed and because of the very high wages it will need to > pay its employees for an extremely dangerous job. To pay for all this they > will need to charge their clients enormous fees severely limiting their > customer base and that means even higher charges. They could > ? ? > never get the upper hand, because the common man's PPA would be able to > outspend a PPA that had outrageous demands and was just for the super > rich. A yacht cost a lot more than a car, yet the Ford motor Company is > far richer than all the yacht builders on the planet combined. > > No system can guarantee justice to everybody all the time but you'd have > the greatest chance of finding it in Anarcho > ?-? > capitalism. In a dictatorship one man's whim can lead to hell on earth, I > don't see how 40 million Germans could have > ? ? > murdered 6 million Jews in a Anarcho-capitalistic world. Things > ? ? > aren't much better in a Democracy, 51% can decide to kill the other 49% , > nothing even close to that is possible in Anarchy ,even theoretically. > > In general, the desire not to be killed is much stronger than the desire > to kill a stranger, even a Jewish stranger. Jews would be willing to pay > as much as necessary, up to and including their entire net worth not to be > killed. I doubt if even the most rabid anti Semite would go much beyond 2%. > As a result the PPA protecting Jews would be much stronger than the one > that wants to kill them. In Anarchy, for things that are REALLY important > to you (like not getting killed) you have much more influence than just > one man one vote. > > ?If we were starting from square one the above is what I would recommend,? > > ?but we are very very far from square one so we just have to do the best > we can with what we've got. > > John K Clark > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 16:53:57 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 09:53:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 10, 2016 8:30 AM, "John Clark" wrote: > Disputes among PPA's would be settled by an independent > arbitrator agreed to by both parties BEFORE the disagreement happened. What if - as has often happened throughout history - one party perceives (perhaps falsely) an advantage to be had by not cooperating with a certain other party, and instead seeks to enslave or annihilate them and seize their resources? Perhaps amassing a drone army so none of their soldiers need die, while the other party is both too small to resist and too prideful or uneducated to accept signing on to some larger defense group that could protect them. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From fortean1 at mindspring.com Fri Jun 10 16:30:57 2016 From: fortean1 at mindspring.com (Terry W. Colvin) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 23:30:57 +0700 (GMT+07:00) Subject: [ExI] FW........Re: Fortean Times magazine - index for sale Message-ID: <20624001.1465576257924.JavaMail.wam@mswamui-valley.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Re: [forteana] Fortean Times magazine - index for sale This is for those with a collection of Fortean Times magazine issues. Instead of getting a CD mailed to me I opted for a soft copy. It cost me ?8.20 UK pounds or $12.16 at today's exchange rate. Nick Vale's PayPal account is his e-mail -- nickvale at bettertest.co.uk . There are 435 entries for "UFO". This only gives you issue numbers, not the actual articles or snippets. There are only three entries for "radar". I'm attaching the e-mail exchange I had with Nick Vale today. Terry QUOTE Hi - Thanks for buying this index! I've been subscribing to Fortean Times since the late 1980's and about 18 months ago completed my collection by tracking down older issues from E-bay. I then realised that the collection could be a useful research tool if only I could find articles I vaguely remembered having seen. So I decided to index it (from issue 67 as I have Steve Moore's published index of the previous issues) and this is the result. As the name suggests it covers mostly the Features, Forums and Sidelines articles from February 1993 to April 2016, as well as letters, some reviews and Strange Deaths. I've also included back references to earlier issues. I intend to update the index every year or so as I spot refinements, errors or omissions, as well as including new issues as they appear and maybe also working backwards from issue 66. As a buyer of one of the first 100 issues of the index it is possible you too will spot short- comings - if so don't just ignore them! Email me the details of any improvements you find with your email address and I will send you an electronic copy of the next version for no charge, probably early in 2017. You can contact me at nickvale at bettertest.co.uk. Other good Fortean resources include the official Fortean Times website: http://forteantimes.com/ A marvellous Fortean Times front cover gallery and contents list: http://ft.gjovaag.com/w/Main_Page The public Facebook Fortean Times Appreciation group The Yahoo Fortean discussion group: https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/forteana/info Thanks again for your support, hope you find the index useful! Nick Vale, June 2016 -------------------------------------------------------------- Sent: Jun 6, 2016 7:52 PM To: forteana at yahoogroups.com Subject: [forteana] Fortean Times magazine - index for sale Hi folks - Hope you don't take this as spamming the group, but If anyone is looking for an Index for their Fortean Times magazine collection... I've finally got my Features, Forum and Sidelines (Version 1) ready for sale: http://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/-/201597829746? Issues 67 to 339 indexed on CD in a searchable PDF format, over a year's work has gone into it, a snip at ?8.99, including postage. And, for buyers of one of the limited numbers available of this first version, a free update for letting me know of any potential refinements spotted. All feedback welcome - thanks! Cheers - Nick ------------------------------------------------------ Re: [forteana] Fortean Times magazine - index for sale Date: Jun 9, 2016 2:36 PM Hi Terry - Thanks for your interest. It seems Ebay doesn't do global shipping to Thailand from the UK which surprised me. I've checked other means though, the best looks to be Royal Mail tracked and signed, which would add another ?10 UK pounds to the price. Alternatively, if you don't want the CD, you can paypal me privately ?8.20 UK pounds (use the email address above) and I'll email you a soft copy. The same free update deal applies if you spot any refinements that I can incorporate into a later version! Let me know what suits best - Nick Vale UNQUOTE . . . . Terry W. Colvin Ladphrao (Bangkok), Thailand Pran Buri (Hua Hin), Thailand http://tlc-brotherhood.net/TLCB_Forum.html ( guests welcome ) http://terrywcolvin.yolasite.com/ [Terry's Fortean and "Work" & Interests Web Site] From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 19:20:24 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:20:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:48 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: *?> *what you suggest sounds like Italy around 1500: clans and their > military enforced things; no overarching gov. How well did that work*?* ?For some reason I'm reminded of Orson Welles's Harry Lime speech from The Third Man: ''*For 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love and 500 years of democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock*.' ? Yes Lime was the bad guy in the movie and he may have maligned the Swiss a bit, but you get the point. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 20:22:06 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 13:22:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:20 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:48 PM, William Flynn Wallace < foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: >> what you suggest sounds like Italy around 1500: clans and their military >> enforced things; no overarching gov. How well did that work? > > For some reason I'm reminded of Orson Welles's Harry Lime speech from > The Third Man: > > ''For 30 years under the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and > bloodshed, but they produced Michelangelo, Leonardo da Vinci and the > Renaissance. In Switzerland, they had brotherly love and 500 years of > democracy and peace, and what did that produce? The cuckoo clock.' > > Yes Lime was the bad guy in the movie and he may have maligned the > Swiss a bit, but you get the point. Great film! But not only was Harry Lime the villain, he was using this to rationalize his particular racket -- selling medicines that didn't work to sick people in postwar Austria. So, he was definitely bending history to his needs. That said, I know. Someone's going to say he was right -- that warfare and civil strife led to cultural ferment and progress. I would question that. I think it was likely more political decentralization plus economic growth plus exposure to foreign cultures through commerce. Warfare and strife were not the causes here, but perhaps more a symptom or just a coincidence. Well, this is debatable, but I hardly think one can go from "the Borgias, they had warfare, terror, murder and bloodshed" to the Renaissance in a simple causal argument without a lot of hand waving and questionable assumptions. And I'd question using Switzerland as a contrast to Renaissance Italy. Switzerland, contrary to Lime, actually experienced much warfare and internal strife. It's really only decades after the post-Napoleonic era that Switzerland kind of settled down into the modern peaceful state we see. You do know, e.g., that Swiss guards were widely used for hundreds of years. This wasn't because all the Swiss was pacifists who danced around the Alps yodeling and eating chocolates. :) Finally, one hardly need mention, I trust, Swiss contributions to technology and the sciences. Regards, Dan Please take a peek at my latest Kindle book at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Thu Jun 9 20:55:01 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders) Date: Thu, 9 Jun 2016 21:55:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=8BPopper_and_unscientific_theories?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5aecdbd5-4137-e7ac-bec4-981b32ae3c48@aleph.se> It is worth noticing that Popper was (and is) big in philosophy of science, but is hardly the last word of what makes a good scientific theory or practice. Falsifiability comes in various shades, actual science is pretty far from a hypothesis-experiment-confirmation/falsification loop, and things like simulations require other ways of thinking about the issue. The age of the universe is AFAIK *not* a prediction of the big bang theory: the theory just predicts a finite age. The age is something you calculate by fitting observation data to a model of the expansion, typically a FRW metric with a model of the mass/energy state - quite a lot of extra data and theory. Big bang theory essentially just states that the universe was smaller and hotter in the past, and that this can be extrapolated to an initial bang state. The rest requires a spacetime theory and a theory for the matter content. It is worth noticing that the Ehlers?Geren?Sachs theorem https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ehlers%E2%80%93Geren%E2%80%93Sachs_theorem makes an isotropic and homogeneous FRW spacetime pretty unavoidable given observations, and would indeed falsify the spacetime if we found large deviations in the background radiation. If you have a FRW spacetime Occam's razor supports that the manifold is open or complete: while one can imagine a finite patch unraveling at its edges, it is a theory that contains extra data (where are those edges?) that does not explain anything we can see (since the edges have to be beyond our horizon). Popper would also argue it is unfalsifiable. In fact, it is somewhat hard to see even where the edge would come from unless the original singularity had a *really* peculiar topology. On 2016-06-09 21:08, John Clark wrote: > ?The philosopher Karl ? > Popper > ?said? > a theory is unscientific if it makes a prediction that can't > ?be ? > falsified > ?regardless of how good experimenters become,? > ? > but what > ?if? > a theory that makes lots of predictions that could have been proven > false but > ?weren't and ? > instead were > ? confirmed? > , > ?but? > ?the same theory ? > also makes some predictions that can't be falsified? > ?Should we just pretend those predictions don't exist? ? > The Big Bang Theory makes a lot of predictions that have been > confirmed and one of them is that the universe is 13.8 billion years old > ?, > and so regardless of where we point out telescopes > ?it predicts ? > we > ?can? > never see anything more distant than 13.8 billion years. And > ?indeed? > our telescopes > ?have never ? > see > ?n anything more distant than 13.8 billion years. T > here are only 2 conclusion > ?s? > that can be? > draw > ?n? > from > ?that ? > observation: > > 1) There > ?are? > lots of stars more distant than 13.8 billion > ?light ? > years but we'll never be able to see > ?them? > ?because light hasn't had enough time to reach us and due to the > accelerating universe there will never be enough time to reach us. > > ? > 2) > ?Nothing exists that is more distant than 13.8 billion light years and ?t > he Earth is at the center of the Universe. > > Despite what Popper might say I think #1 is the more scientific > conclusion. In a similar way Everett's Many Worlds Theory does such a > good job explaining how the 2 slit experiment > ?works? > ? > I don't think it's unscientific to conclude other worlds might exist. > > ? John K Clark? > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 20:57:39 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:57:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=8BPopper_and_unscientific_theories?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > ?>> ? >> 1) There are lots of stars more distant than 13.8 billion light years >> but we'll never be able to see them because light hasn't had enough >> time to reach us and due to the accelerating universe there will never be >> enough time to reach us. >> 2) Nothing exists that is more distant than 13.8 billion light years and >> the Earth is at the center of the Universe. > > > ?> ? > I don't agree with Popper's solution to the demarcation problem, but what > makes you think one is scientific and the other not? > If Popper is right then the scientific conclusion is that the Earth is at the center of the universe. ?At most only one place can be the center (infinite things have no center at all) but lots of places can be off center ?,? ? thus? it would seem very unlikely ?that ? I just happened to be at the center of spherical universe with a 13.8 billion light year radius. So I disagree with Popper and conclude there are parts of the universe I can never see even in theory. John K Clark > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 21:07:34 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 14:07:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=8BPopper_and_unscientific_theories?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 1:57 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jun 9, 2016 at 5:08 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > >>> >>> >> >>> 1) There are lots of stars more distant than 13.8 billion light years but we'll never be able to see them because light hasn't had enough time to reach us and due to the accelerating universe there will never be enough time to reach us. >>> 2) Nothing exists that is more distant than 13.8 billion light years and the Earth is at the center of the Universe. >> >> >> >> >> > >> I don't agree with Popper's solution to the demarcation problem, but what makes you think one is scientific and the other not? > > > If Popper is right then the scientific conclusion is that the Earth is at the center of the universe. At most only one place can be the center (infinite things have no center at all) but lots of places can be off center > , > thus > it would seem very unlikely > that > I just happened to be at the center of spherical universe with a 13.8 billion light year radius. So I disagree with Popper and conclude there are parts of the universe I can never see even in theory. That doesn't really answer my question, which was Why do you think one view is scientific and the other isn't? It wasn't which one do you think more likely to be the case. Also, did Popper actually hold this view? My recollection was he believed in objective truth, so he probably would believe there was stuff outside any theory about the universe. (In fact, wasn't his view more something like that theories are all wrong, some just haven't yet been shown to be wrong? Or at least, falsification can only show us that any given scientific theory hasn't yet been proven wrong.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 21:11:33 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 16:11:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] article Message-ID: https://aeon.co/essays/how-disgust-made-humans-cooperate-to-build-civilisations?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ebf59b6f31-Weekly_Newsletter_10_June_20166_10_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-ebf59b6f31-68993993 Which prompted this reply from me: I am reminded of Freud's assertion that the development of morality - the superego, that is - stemmed from the evolution of prehumans. Specifically, he said that getting one's nose up in the air rather than close to the ground developed a sense of disgust with what was on the ground. So we can thank shit for our morality. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 22:57:16 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 15:57:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] article In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 10, 2016, at 2:11 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > https://aeon.co/essays/how-disgust-made-humans-cooperate-to-build-civilisations?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=ebf59b6f31-Weekly_Newsletter_10_June_20166_10_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-ebf59b6f31-68993993 > > Which prompted this reply from me: > > I am reminded of Freud's assertion that the development of morality - the superego, that is - stemmed from the evolution of prehumans. Specifically, he said that getting one's nose up in the air rather than close to the ground developed a sense of disgust with what was on the ground. So we can thank shit for our morality. Sounds like a crap argument to me. ;) Regards, Dan Sample my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 23:48:26 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 19:48:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=8BPopper_and_unscientific_theories?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 4:57 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > If Popper is right then the scientific conclusion is that the Earth is at > the center of the universe. ?At most only one place can be the center > (infinite things have no center at all) but lots of places can be off center > ?,? > ? thus? > it would seem very unlikely > ?that ? > I just happened to be at the center of spherical universe with a 13.8 > billion light year radius. So I disagree with Popper and conclude there are > parts of the universe I can never see even in theory. > > > ### Observers on the surface of a sphere see themselves in the middle of a plane, surrounded by a circle horizon. Observers on the surface of a hypersphere see themselves in the middle of space, surrounded by a spherical horizon. Every observer is always in the center of his universe. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Jun 10 23:59:34 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 10 Jun 2016 19:59:34 -0400 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 12:48 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > > Not to re-enter that discussion, but the biggest problem with Wall Street > and collapse of 2008 was that there were few if any penalties, much less > harsh ones. So why not do it again? They will. Oh yes, they will. The > incentives to do so are billions of dollars. Measure that against a jail > term of a few years, and probably not for the top people. > ### Communists tried killing the greedy capitalists to build heaven on earth. Didn't work out. But, hey, why not try again? Let's have harsh penalties, say death, for financial misbehavior, like not paying your mortgage. After all, the collapse of 2008 was caused by millions of regular greedy Schmoes taking on too much debt, not just by a few greedy banksters issuing it to them. They would have never done it if they knew there would be hell to pay. Let's start killing them all. That *will* eventually prevent financial crashes. Them commies are smart, you just need to try harder. Rafa? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jun 11 16:24:45 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:24:45 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=8BPopper_and_unscientific_theories?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > it would seem very unlikely that I just happened to be at the center of >> spherical universe with a 13.8 billion light year radius. So I disagree >> with Popper and conclude there are parts of the universe I can never see >> even in theory. > > > ?> ? > That doesn't really answer my question, which was Why do you think one > view is scientific and the other isn't? It wasn't which one do you think > more likely to be the case. > ?The answer to the question "is X true?" has an objective answer even if you don't know what it is, but the answer to the question "is X scientific?" is subjective. Popper and I have different opinions on the subject. > ?> ? > Also, did Popper actually hold this view? > ?Probably not, I doubt if Popper knew much about science in general or the Big Bang Theory in particular, but he did have an opinion on Evolution. As late as 1976 Popper says i n chapter 37 of ?his ? book "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography": *"Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program*". ?This is not something to make Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science proud. ? ? Finally, two years later in 1978 at the age of 76 and 119 years after the publication of "The Origin Of Species", perhaps the greatest scientific book ever written, Popper belatedly said: ?*I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation*?. Popper came to the conclusion that this Darwin whippersnapper might be onto something after all in his 1978 (1978!!) lecture "Natural Selection and the Emergence of Mind". ? ? Better late than never I guess, but for most of his life Popper did not approve of Evolution and his opposition did a lot of harm, to this day Bible thumpers use Popper quotations in their legal briefs to try to get creationism taught in the classroom. ? John K Clark? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Jun 11 16:34:44 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 12:34:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=8BPopper_and_unscientific_theories?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: If Popper is right then the scientific conclusion is that the Earth is at >> the center of the universe. ?At most only one place can be the center >> (infinite things have no center at all) but lots of places can be off center >> ?,? >> ? thus? >> it would seem very unlikely >> ?that ? >> I just happened to be at the center of spherical universe with a 13.8 >> billion light year radius. So I disagree with Popper and conclude there are >> parts of the universe I can never see even in theory. >> >> >> ?> ? > ### Observers on the surface of a sphere see themselves in the middle of a > plane, surrounded by a circle horizon. Observers on the surface of a > hypersphere see themselves in the middle of space, surrounded by a > spherical horizon. > ?if Popper knew what a 4D ?hypersphere was (and he almost certainly didn't) he would say the existence of such a thing was a untestable hypothesis and the simplest explanation that fit the observable facts is the Earth is at the center of a regular old 3D sphere with a 13.8 billion light year radius and no fancy stuff is required. I would disagree. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Jun 11 16:44:27 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 11:44:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day Message-ID: ?Aha, you are an advocate of useful knowledge? ?Certainly? ?You say that a man?s first job is to earn a living, and that the first task of education is to equip him for that job?? ?Of course.? ?Well, allow me to introduce myself to you as an advocate of Ornamental Knowledge. You like the mind to be a neat machine, equipped to work efficiently, if narrowly and with no extra bits or useless parts. I like the mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable amount of healthy dirt. Shake the machine and it goes out of order; shake the dustbin and it adjusts itself beautifully to its new position.? Robertson Davies, in the Salterton trilogy -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Jun 11 16:47:37 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 11:47:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=8BPopper_and_unscientific_theories?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bible thumpers use Popper quotations in their legal briefs to try to get creationism taught in the classroom. ? John K Clark? Would any of you consider any part of the Bible knowledge? bill w On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 11:34 AM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 7:48 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki < > rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > If Popper is right then the scientific conclusion is that the Earth is at >>> the center of the universe. ?At most only one place can be the center >>> (infinite things have no center at all) but lots of places can be off center >>> ?,? >>> ? thus? >>> it would seem very unlikely >>> ?that ? >>> I just happened to be at the center of spherical universe with a 13.8 >>> billion light year radius. So I disagree with Popper and conclude there are >>> parts of the universe I can never see even in theory. >>> >>> >>> ?> ? >> ### Observers on the surface of a sphere see themselves in the middle of >> a plane, surrounded by a circle horizon. Observers on the surface of a >> hypersphere see themselves in the middle of space, surrounded by a >> spherical horizon. >> > > ?if Popper knew what a 4D ?hypersphere was (and he > almost certainly didn't) he would say the existence of such a thing was a > untestable hypothesis and the simplest explanation that fit the observable > facts is the Earth is at the center of a regular old 3D sphere with a 13.8 > billion light year radius and no fancy stuff is required. I would disagree. > > John K Clark > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Jun 11 18:31:40 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 11:31:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=8BPopper_and_unscientific_theories?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1CA46C8A-0B89-4CD6-A511-3F34DCCEE8F8@gmail.com> On Jun 11, 2016, at 9:47 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Bible thumpers use Popper quotations in their legal briefs to try to get creationism taught in the classroom.? > > John K Clark? > > Would any of you consider any part of the Bible knowledge? Mayne in the way the the Homeric epics contain knowledge. Regards, Dan Sample my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Jun 11 23:01:39 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 16:01:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=8BPopper_and_unscientific_theories?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 9:34 AM, John Clark wrote: > if Popper knew what a 4D hypersphere was (and he almost certainly > didn't) he would say the existence of such a thing was a untestable > hypothesis and the simplest explanation that fit the observable facts > is the Earth is at the center of a regular old 3D sphere with a 13.8 > billion light year radius and no fancy stuff is required. I would disagree. Where are you getting this from? I'm not a fan of Popper and I'm not sure what he know about geometry, but he actually praised Einstein for relativity theory, especially general relativity because he believed Einstein's theory made testable predictions -- i.e., ones that could be falsified. (In fact, the usual targets for Popper, in his demarcation of science from non-science, were Marxism and psychoanalysis, which he believed the followers of insulated from falsification.) Regards, Dan Sample my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Jun 11 23:04:25 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 16:04:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=8BPopper_and_unscientific_theories?= In-Reply-To: <1CA46C8A-0B89-4CD6-A511-3F34DCCEE8F8@gmail.com> References: <1CA46C8A-0B89-4CD6-A511-3F34DCCEE8F8@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > > On Jun 11, 2016, at 9:47 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> Would any of you consider any part of the Bible knowledge? > > Mayne in the way the the Homeric epics contain knowledge. That should've started with "Maybe." Why didn't autocorrect catch that one? Regards, Dan Sample my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Jun 11 23:45:58 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 16:45:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=8BPopper_and_unscientific_theories?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 9:24 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 5:07 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> That doesn't really answer my question, which was Why do you think >> one view is scientific and the other isn't? It wasn't which one do you > think more likely to be the case. > > The answer to the question "is X true?" has an objective answer even if you > don't know what it is, but the answer to the question "is X scientific?" is > subjective. Popper and I have different opinions on the subject. Okay, so then you're retracting your earlier statement. This one: "Despite what Popper might say I think #1 is the more scientific conclusion." Or you can reword it to be consistent with your view of what's scientific being purely subjective. And, actually, Popper believed that demarcation between science and non-science was objective. Of course, you disagree with him, but that's different than, say, you and he agreeing that it's subjective and just having different subjective positions. Also, there are huge and long debates over what Popper meant and whether he's correct. I bring this up because, like you did with philosophy in general and Mortimer J. Adler a few months ago, it appears you are equating "philosophy of science" with "Popper's particular views on philosophy of science." Please don't repeat that error. >> Also, did Popper actually hold this view? > > Probably not, I doubt if Popper knew much about science in general or the Big Bang > Theory in particular, I think you're wrong there. He wrote a whole book on quantum mechanics and even heard a lecture given by Einstein. Have you read much Popper beyond quoting from his autobiography and a scattering of essays? It might be best for you to assume that a philosopher who specializes in philosophy of science -- and there are many of these, from Carnap and Hempel to Lawrence Sklar and Philip Kitcher to Paul Thagard and Laura Reutsche. They tend to have more than a passing acquaintance with the sciences they focus on -- be they general relativity (Sklar), biology (Kitcher), or quantum field theory (Reutsche). > but he did have an opinion on Evolution. As late as 1976 Popper says i > n chapter 37 of > his book "Unended Quest: An Intellectual Autobiography": > > "Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research program". > > This > is not something to make Popper fans or fans of philosophers of science proud. See above. Very important that you NOT conflate "philosophy of science" with the views of Karl Popper. Let me try to give you an analogy here. Marx wrote many ridiculous things about economics, IMO. Do you believe economists should be ashamed of this? Do you believe all economists are Marxists? Do you believe anyone who uses economic theories or an economic approach must needs be a Marxist or an heir to Marx's thought? > Finally, two years later in 1978 at the age of 76 and 119 years after the publication > of "The Origin Of Species", perhaps the greatest scientific book ever written, > Popper belatedly said: > > ?I have changed my mind about the testability and logical status of the theory of > natural selection; and I am glad to have an opportunity to make a recantation?. > > Popper came to the conclusion that this Darwin whippersnapper might be onto > something after all in his 1978 (1978!!) lecture "Natural Selection and the > Emergence of Mind". Better late than never I guess, but for most of his life > Popper did not approve of Evolution and his opposition did a lot of harm, to this > day Bible thumpers use Popper quotations in their legal briefs to try to get > creationism taught in the classroom. So? What are folk to do? Censor themselves for fear someone might take their words out of context and use them for other ends, such as Creationists wanting to get their views in classrooms? Shouldn't thinkers be encouraged to be bold rather than always be wary? Actually, that the demarcation problem is used to decide a legal case is a big problem here. In my reading, there is no widely accepted view on demarcation within the philosophy of science community. That shouldn't matter. Were education not a government program, this wouldn't matter. In fact, from a pedagogical perspective, it shouldn't matter for intro to biology courses, which would likely be geared toward getting the broadly accepted views in a field down -- rather than looking at alternatives in any depth. Surely, alternatives to the reigning paradigm might be raised -- like talking about alchemy or phlogiston theory in a chemistry 101 class, but there wouldn't equal time given. If someone were studying more higher level courses on philosophy of science or history of science, then these sorts of things would likely be given more time. But for grade school kids, it seems about as appropriate or useful as introducing kids learning fractions to non-standard analysis would be. Regards, Dan See my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Jun 11 23:59:41 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 16:59:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 9:48 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I am against punishment, mostly, for children - if it's the belt kind. > Taking away privileges works much better for many reasons. But > if you want to get rid of corruption you have to penalize and heavily. > Quick and devastatingly hard punishment will stop the behavior > more quickly than anything. Chopping off hands for a bit of > shoplifting seems extremely harsh, but it's the right idea if the wrong method. The problem there would be threefold. One, it seems unjust since the punishment doesn't fit the crime -- chopping off a hand or two is wildly out of proportion for shoplifting, even for high end items. It's like beheading someone for walking across your lawn. Two, it's impossible to undo the damage in a false positive: you get the wrong person, they lose their hand or hands, and then what do you do? Three, such a high penalty would likely make any who still wanting to shoplift to be extremely violent when confronted or caught. One can easily imagine shoplifters killing anyone they believe might catch them. Draconian penalties usually make for those kinds of responses, no? And it seems a lie to believe these penalties work. The societies that have them are generally closed ones where the rulers tell you what they want you to believe about them -- rather than (more or less) open ones where you can look at the data and folks on the inside can criticize the policies. > Not to re-enter that discussion, but the biggest problem with Wall > Street and collapse of 2008 was that there were few if any penalties, > much less harsh ones. So why not do it again? They will. Oh yes, > they will. The incentives to do so are billions of dollars. Measure > that against a jail term of a few years, and probably not for the top people. Far easier to achieve here might be for the federal government to simply stop rescuing Wall Street when it gets in these kinds of situations. If large investors and large firms could lose everything when taking risks -- rather than arguing they're too big to fail -- then they might be much more cautious in the first place. And when they're not cautious? Well, they'd lose their position in the market, which would be a lesson to everyone else. That wouldn't require any special new laws or punishments -- just letting the market actually work. > On a related note, I read that many companies are getting into finance > and out of providing services and products. Doesn't sound good, but what do I know? > Seems private debt is getting worse than national debt. Debt is really only bad when negative feedback loops are thwarted. Nothing wrong with borrowing per se, but when folks -- in or out of government -- can borrow and use the tax base to bail them out, then that removes the negative feedback loop. It prevents error correction and tends to moral hazard problems. You, as a libertarian, should be well aware of this. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Jun 12 00:23:45 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 17:23:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 9:44 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > ?Aha, you are an advocate of useful knowledge? > > ?Certainly? > > ?You say that a man?s first job is to earn a living, and that the first task of education > is to equip him for that job?? > > ?Of course.? > > ?Well, allow me to introduce myself to you as an advocate of Ornamental > Knowledge. You like the mind to be a neat machine, equipped to work > efficiently, if narrowly and with no extra bits or useless parts. I like the > mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless but > fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable > amount of healthy dirt. Shake the machine and it goes out of order; shake > the dustbin and it adjusts itself beautifully to its new position.? > > Robertson Davies, in the Salterton trilogy This reminds of a book on writing I read a while back. In a section on choosing the right word, the author recommending sometimes one would do better to find the wrong word, even the absolutely wrong word, for a given passage and see what happens. Regards, Dan Sample my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Jun 12 01:41:47 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 11 Jun 2016 20:41:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This reminds of a book on writing I read a while back. In a section on choosing the right word, the author recommending sometimes one would do better to find the wrong word, even the absolutely wrong word, for a given passage and see what happens. Regards, Dan What is very likely to happen is that the reader will remember that passage more than anything else in the writing, because it makes it stand out. What that has to do with Davies, I dunno. bill w On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 7:23 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 9:44 AM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > ?Aha, you are an advocate of useful knowledge? > > > > ?Certainly? > > > > ?You say that a man?s first job is to earn a living, and that the first > task of education > > is to equip him for that job?? > > > > ?Of course.? > > > > ?Well, allow me to introduce myself to you as an advocate of Ornamental > > Knowledge. You like the mind to be a neat machine, equipped to work > > efficiently, if narrowly and with no extra bits or useless parts. I > like the > > mind to be a dustbin of scraps of brilliant fabric, odd gems, worthless > but > > fascinating curiosities, tinsel, quaint bits of carving, and a reasonable > > amount of healthy dirt. Shake the machine and it goes out of order; > shake > > the dustbin and it adjusts itself beautifully to its new position.? > > > > Robertson Davies, in the Salterton trilogy > > This reminds of a book on writing I read a while back. In a section on > choosing the right word, the author recommending sometimes one would do > better to find the wrong word, even the absolutely wrong word, for a given > passage and see what happens. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: > http://mybook.to/Gurlitt > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Jun 12 08:48:05 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 09:48:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=8BPopper_and_unscientific_theories?= In-Reply-To: References: <1CA46C8A-0B89-4CD6-A511-3F34DCCEE8F8@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12 June 2016 at 00:04, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 11:31 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> >> Mayne in the way the the Homeric epics contain knowledge. > > That should've started with "Maybe." Why didn't autocorrect catch that one? > Interesting????? I just typed it in gmail and Mayne was flagged as an error with Maybe as a suggested alternative. (should've was also marked as an error). ;) However, I see that you are using an iPhone, so that indicates an iPhone auto-correct problem. One possibility is that Mayne is a surname that in the past you may have added to your iPhone dictionary. But many people just give up and switch off iPhone auto-correct in despair. :) BillK From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sun Jun 12 13:55:40 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 06:55:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Progress Message-ID: Hi The two dozen of you on this mailing have known about me and the cult, some of you since I got involved more than 20 years ago. For a while I was a refugee in Canada and spent time locked up in solitary confinement. It had effects on other parts of my life, biasing me against the US. The government should protect people against criminals, not help the criminals make people's lives miserable. Calling a criminal operation a religion does not make it better. Putting the cult out of business is still to be done, but they have 10% of the members they had in 1995 when they went after the internet (and me) and the media is no longer scared of them. This story would not have happened or been told about 20 years ago. http://www.newsitem.com/news/2016-06-12/Today%27s_Top_Stories/Mt_Carmel_native_in_flap_over_his_son_Scientology.html Best wishes, Keith From atymes at gmail.com Sun Jun 12 17:45:32 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 10:45:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Progress In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 6:55 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > Putting the cult out of business is still to be done, but they have > 10% of the members they had in 1995 when they went after the internet > (and me) and the media is no longer scared of them. This story would > not have happened or been told about 20 years ago. > > > http://www.newsitem.com/news/2016-06-12/Today%27s_Top_Stories/Mt_Carmel_native_in_flap_over_his_son_Scientology.html > Indeed, this is progress. Let them whittle away until they are small enough that one event can end them as a large organization - or more likely, until they are small enough that they basically run out of people to boss around. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From painlord2k at libero.it Sun Jun 12 19:22:08 2016 From: painlord2k at libero.it (Mirco Romanato) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 21:22:08 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Progress In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <05703a36-f233-2d76-4e8d-a92e0bda2576@libero.it> Il 12/06/2016 19:45, Adrian Tymes ha scritto: > Indeed, this is progress. Let them whittle away until they are small > enough that one event can end them as a large organization - or more > likely, until they are small enough that they basically run out of > people to boss around. Talking progress, we have another cult acting in plain view (orlando) and apparently the seller of dead trees and empty air are too scared to call it what it is. They reported the words of the killer's father telling it ha nothing to do with Islam, just with hate against homosexuals (not hate against homosexuality). Prepare to hear about self radicalized homofobe by HRC, because it is surely Trump fault for his misoginistic speeches. From atymes at gmail.com Sun Jun 12 19:50:56 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 12:50:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] an ai wrote this script In-Reply-To: References: <050401d1b60e$2a8dd2b0$7fa97810$@att.net> <02f6ea78-ae26-af69-a2c7-4e09c12ec957@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Wed, May 25, 2016 at 4:25 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I read a few years ago about a computer that could compose write popular > music that was very listenable. I did not follow it up because I am not > interested in popular. (Of course in classical, you can find some that > seems to have been written by a random numbers table (1930s and > afterwards). Ugly ugly 'music'. ) > > > Is this an AI thing? Anyone? > Sorry for the late response, but - yes. The keyword you want is "autocomposer". I used one back in the late 1990s to generate the background music for a game I wrote. http://www.wingedcat.org/music/ if you want to judge for yourself. It did require me to bin-sort the good ones from the less listenable ones, and do a bit of manual editing...but again, this was 1990s. I can not help but think there's better stuff out there now, if you look. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Jun 12 21:12:43 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 16:12:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] anarchy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Far easier to achieve here might be for the federal government to simply stop rescuing Wall Street when it gets in these kinds of situations. If large investors and large firms could lose everything when taking risks -- rather than arguing they're too big to fail -- then they might be much more cautious in the first place. And when they're not cautious? Well, they'd lose their position in the market, which would be a lesson to everyone else. That wouldn't require any special new laws or punishments -- just letting the market actually work. dan Since I don't read finance news, I dunno the answer to this: when the companies got bailed out and prevented from going bankrupt, to what extent did this protect the money of the people who bought the derivatives and such? I can see letting a company fail - Lehman Bros. was it? - but not letting investors get hit so hard. As for severe punishment, I would never use anything not reversible, as in the hand cut off example, if the actual guilt of the perpetrator was in question. I would never go further than one hard whack to the bottom, in the case of a kid, though I never did hit mine at all. Perhaps I would have had they done something really dangerous, the only situation I can think of that I would use more severe punishment in. And the only reason for using severe punishment in that situation is that it tends to stop the behavior very fast. And one would never use punishment alone to modify the behavior. Severe punishment in the context means positive punishment, as contrasted with negative punishment, which consists of taking rewards away, like TV time. bill w On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 at 6:59 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 10, 2016 at 9:48 AM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > > I am against punishment, mostly, for children - if it's the belt kind. > > Taking away privileges works much better for many reasons. But > > if you want to get rid of corruption you have to penalize and heavily. > > Quick and devastatingly hard punishment will stop the behavior > > more quickly than anything. Chopping off hands for a bit of > > shoplifting seems extremely harsh, but it's the right idea if the wrong > method. > > The problem there would be threefold. One, it seems unjust since the > punishment doesn't fit the crime -- chopping off a hand or two is wildly > out of proportion for shoplifting, even for high end items. It's like > beheading someone for walking across your lawn. Two, it's impossible to > undo the damage in a false positive: you get the wrong person, they lose > their hand or hands, and then what do you do? Three, such a high penalty > would likely make any who still wanting to shoplift to be extremely violent > when confronted or caught. One can easily imagine shoplifters killing > anyone they believe might catch them. Draconian penalties usually make for > those kinds of responses, no? > > And it seems a lie to believe these penalties work. The societies that > have them are generally closed ones where the rulers tell you what they > want you to believe about them -- rather than (more or less) open ones > where you can look at the data and folks on the inside can criticize the > policies. > > > Not to re-enter that discussion, but the biggest problem with Wall > > Street and collapse of 2008 was that there were few if any penalties, > > much less harsh ones. So why not do it again? They will. Oh yes, > > they will. The incentives to do so are billions of dollars. Measure > > that against a jail term of a few years, and probably not for the top > people. > > Far easier to achieve here might be for the federal government to simply > stop rescuing Wall Street when it gets in these kinds of situations. If > large investors and large firms could lose everything when taking risks -- > rather than arguing they're too big to fail -- then they might be much more > cautious in the first place. And when they're not cautious? Well, they'd > lose their position in the market, which would be a lesson to everyone > else. That wouldn't require any special new laws or punishments -- just > letting the market actually work. > > > On a related note, I read that many companies are getting into finance > > and out of providing services and products. Doesn't sound good, but > what do I know? > > Seems private debt is getting worse than national debt. > > Debt is really only bad when negative feedback loops are thwarted. Nothing > wrong with borrowing per se, but when folks -- in or out of government -- > can borrow and use the tax base to bail them out, then that removes the > negative feedback loop. It prevents error correction and tends to moral > hazard problems. You, as a libertarian, should be well aware of this. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books via: > http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jun 13 00:12:49 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 20:12:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=8BPopper_and_unscientific_theories?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 Dan TheBookMan wrote: > if Popper knew what a 4D hypersphere was (and he almost certainly >> > didn't) he would say the existence of such a thing was a untestable >> > hypothesis and the simplest explanation that fit the observable facts >> > is the Earth is at the center of a regular old 3D sphere with a 13.8 >> > billion light year radius and no fancy stuff is required. I would >> disagree. > > > ?> ? > Where are you getting this from? I'm not a fan of Popper and I'm not sure > what he know about geometry, but he actually praised Einstein for > relativity theory, especially general relativity because he believed > Einstein's theory made testable predictions > ?OK lets talk about testable predictions. If the universe were a finite 4D ? h ypersphere ? then if you kept moving in a straight line you'd eventually come back to were you started, and if we look at the variation in the microwave background radiation in one part of the sky we'd expect it to match up with the pattern 180 degrees away, but we observe no such correlation. That could be explained if the universe is larger that 13.8 billion light years, the light informing us of such a correlation hasn't had time to reach us and in a expanding acceleration universe it never will. But that's not testable, Popper would say we're not allowed to hypothesize about places we can never observe, therefore things must be the way things seem to be and the Earth is at the center of the universe. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jun 13 00:30:51 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 20:30:51 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=8BPopper_and_unscientific_theories?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 Dan TheBookMan wrote: > >> ?>? >> The answer to the question "is X true?" has an objective answer even if >> you >> ? ? >> don't know what it is, but the answer to the question "is X scientific?" >> is >> ? ? >> subjective. Popper and I have different opinions on the subject. > > > ?> ? > Okay, so then you're retracting your earlier statement. This one: > ? ? > "Despite what Popper might say I think #1 is the more scientific > conclusion." > ?I retract nothing because everything I think is subjective; "I think" is what "subjective" means, I think. You may think differently, I think. ?> ? > Or you can reword it to be consistent with your view of what's scientific > being purely subjective. > ?Or I can do neither.? ?> ? And, actually, Popper believed that demarcation between science and non-science was objective. ? That would imply there is a rigid algorithm on how do science, and there isn't. If there were philosophers of science like Popper would also be a great scientists, and they aren't. Ernst Mach was a huge ? philosopher ? of science ? but he was more of a medium size physicist. He wrote his most important scientific paper in 1887, but the man lived till 1916 and is far better remembered as a philosopher than ? as ? a scientist ? ; as a young man even Einstein liked Mach's philosophy but broke with him at almost the exact same time Einstein started to become a great scientist in 1905. Mach ? spent nearly 30 years on philosophy and in opposing Quantum Mechanics, Einstein's Theory of Relativity both General and Special, and ?h? e ? even opposed ? the atomic ? theory of matter. He opposed these superb scientific theories for purely philosophical reasons I might add. ?> ? > It might be best for you to assume that a philosopher who specializes in > philosophy of science -- and there are many of these, from Carnap and > Hempel to Lawrence Sklar and Philip Kitcher to Paul Thagard and Laura > Reutsche. ? None of whom were great scientists. And we don't want to forget ? Auguste Comte ?,? in 1835 ? this great philosopher determined from his pure philosophical studies that human beings would never find out what the stars are made of. ? ? In 1850 natural philosopher (scientist) Gustav Kirchhoff looked at the spectrum of stars and found out what ? they are made of. ? ? > ?> ? > Very important that you NOT conflate "philosophy of science" with the > views of Karl Popper. > ?So now it's unfair to criticize the philosophy of science by finding a stupid quotation from the most famous philosopher of science of our age? Well then give me a quote from a less famous philosopher of science ? that has actually helped scientists ?do science. Tell me one thing, just one thing, that people who call themselves philosophers ? of science? have discovered in the last century or so ? that is deep, clear, precise, unexpected, and true that scientists had not discovered long before. > ?> ? > Marx wrote many ridiculous things about economics, IMO. > ?I agree.? > ?> ? > Do you believe economists should be ashamed of this? > ?Certainly, just as biologists should be ashamed of Trofim Lysenko ?. ? > ?> ? > Shouldn't thinkers be encouraged to be bold rather than always be wary? > ?I think saying as late as 1976 (1976!!) that Darwin was unscientific as Popper did wasn't being bold, it was being STUPID. ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Jun 13 05:12:09 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 22:12:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=8BPopper_and_unscientific_theories?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 5:12 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 Dan TheBookMan wrote: >>> > if Popper knew what a 4D hypersphere was (and he almost certainly >>> > didn't) he would say the existence of such a thing was a untestable >>> > hypothesis and the simplest explanation that fit the observable facts >>> > is the Earth is at the center of a regular old 3D sphere with a 13.8 >>> > billion light year radius and no fancy stuff is required. I would disagree. >> >> >> Where are you getting this from? I'm not a fan of Popper and I'm not sure >> what he know about geometry, but he actually praised Einstein for relativity >> theory, especially general relativity because he believed Einstein's theory >> made testable predictions > > > OK lets talk about testable predictions. If the universe were a finite > 4D hypersphere > then if you kept moving in a straight line you'd eventually come back to > were you started, and if we look at the variation in the microwave > background radiation in one part of the sky we'd expect it to match up > with the pattern 180 degrees away, but we observe no such correlation. > That could be explained if the universe is larger that 13.8 billion light > years, the light informing us of such a correlation hasn't had time to > reach us and in a expanding acceleration universe it never will. But > that's not testable, Popper would say we're not allowed to hypothesize > about places we can never observe, therefore things must be the way > things seem to be and the Earth is at the center of the universe. Let me state this a different way: Where does Popper hold this view? I've only read his book on quantum mechanics and a few others things here and there. My understanding is that he's not against positing unobservables in scientific theories -- which unobservable parts of the universe would be, be they subatomic particles or regions of space not open to inspection. The example you use about, e.g., would seem to fall under his falsificationist view because one thing a larger universe might have (adding in a big helping of other assumptions) is parts that a correlated. I'm not a Popperian, but I don't see why one couldn't take that tack if one acceptable what seem to be the core ideas of Popper and Popperians. Let me be more clear: Why couldn't Popperians hold all kinds of views that fit with the consensus in cosmology now -- a consensus you seem to broadly agree with? And do you have textual support where Popper or Popperians make claims that go strongly against the consensus in this area or of this area when they were written? I'm also not sure why you cut out the rest of my post -- you know, the part that included: "-- i.e., ones that could be falsified. (In fact, the usual targets for Popper, in his demarcation of science from non-science, were Marxism and psychoanalysis, which he believed the followers of insulated from falsification.)" Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Jun 13 05:50:22 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 22:50:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=8BPopper_and_unscientific_theories?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 5:30 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Jun 11, 2016 Dan TheBookMan wrote: >>> The answer to the question "is X true?" has an objective answer even if you >>> don't know what it is, but the answer to the question "is X scientific?" is >>> subjective. Popper and I have different opinions on the subject. >> >> >> Okay, so then you're retracting your earlier statement. This one: >> "Despite what Popper might say I think #1 is the more scientific conclusion." > > I retract nothing because everything I think is subjective; "I think" is what "subjective" means, I think. You may think differently, I think. Whatever. You original claim here was worded very differently. >> > >> Or you can reword it to be consistent with your view of what's scientific being purely subjective. > > > Or I can do neither. Right. >> And, actually, Popper believed that demarcation between science and >> non-science was objective. > > That would imply there is a rigid algorithm on how do science, and there isn't. I'm not sure that follows. One can have a demarcation and yet that wouldn't provide with more than telling science from non-science. It would tell you, in other words, which particular scientific theories or positions are better. My understanding is that Popper believed his demarcation merely told you which was scientific, but didn't decide amongst scientific theories as such. For instance, the wave theory of light and phlogiston theory of burning were (or seem to me to be) scientific according to Popper's criteria. They also happen to be wrong. That's also another issue in philosophy of science -- where I believe most philosophers of science hold that there is no rigid or precise algorithm. > If there were philosophers of science like Popper would also be a great scientists, and they aren't. I'm not sure that follows either. Philosophers of science, like Popper, are not trying to do science. They're usually trying to explain science and sometimes venture into how to do science better. Popper's falsification is wildly popular amongst scientists. So, there's that. (Recall, once more, I'm not a Popperian.) > Ernst Mach was a huge philosopher of science > but he was more of a medium size physicist. He wrote his most important > scientific paper in 1887, but the man lived till 1916 and is far better > remembered as a philosopher than as a scientist > ; as a young man even Einstein liked Mach's philosophy but broke with him > at almost the exact same time Einstein started to become a great scientist in 1905. Mach > spent nearly 30 years on philosophy and in opposing Quantum Mechanics, > Einstein's Theory of Relativity both General and Special, and he > even opposed the atomic > theory of matter. He opposed these superb scientific theories for purely > philosophical reasons I might add. So what? Other philosophers of science -- like Popper -- accepting many theories -- quantum mechanics and relativity. What does this get you? Mach was also best, it seems to me, at offering criticisms and alternatives others reacted against -- others, including Einstein. >> It might be best for you to assume that a philosopher who specializes in >> philosophy of science -- and there are many of these, from Carnap and >> Hempel to Lawrence Sklar and Philip Kitcher to Paul Thagard and Laura Reutsche. > > > None of whom were great scientists. I never claimed they were scientists, great or otherwise. They are philosophers of science -- not scientists. Notice you chopped off the rest of my paragraph too. Let me help anyone else bothering to read our discussion with the full paragraph: "It might be best for you to assume that a philosopher who specializes in philosophy of science -- and there are many of these, from Carnap and Hempel to Lawrence Sklar and Philip Kitcher to Paul Thagard and Laura Reutsche. They tend to have more than a passing acquaintance with the sciences they focus on -- be they general relativity (Sklar), biology (Kitcher), or quantum field theory (Reutsche)." My point in listing these folks was not to claim they were great scientists. It was to show that, in general, philosophers of science -- at least, serious ones -- are acquainted with the sciences they philosophize about. They are, big fucking surprise, not scientists and don't tend to do original work in the sciences. Again, not a surprise. The same might be said of historians of science. Historians of science don't make new discoveries about cosmology and don't head on over to CERN with new proposals on particle physics. > And we don't want to forget Auguste Comte, in 1835 > this great philosopher determined from his pure philosophical studies that > human beings would never find out what the stars are made of. In 1850 > natural philosopher (scientist) Gustav Kirchhoff looked at the spectrum of > stars and found out what > they are made of. Comte is important why? There are plenty of folks -- including philosophers, scientists, and others -- who made bold predictions about what cannot be discovered and later on were found to be wrong. >> Very important that you NOT conflate "philosophy of science" with the views of Karl Popper. > > So now it's unfair to criticize the philosophy of science by finding a stupid quotation from the > most famous philosopher of science of our age? How do we go from: 1. Very important that you NOT conflate "philosophy of science" with the views of Karl Popper. to: 2. So now it's unfair to criticize the philosophy of science by finding a stupid quotation from the most famous philosopher of science of our age? Criticize away! All you've tended to do here is conflate the views of Popper or Mach with philosophy of science in general. This is like someone quoting the views of those geologists who scoffed at Wegener or bringing up Kelvin's views on the age of the Earth. > Well then give me a quote from a less famous > philosopher of science that has actually helped scientists do science. > Tell me one thing, just one thing, that people who call themselves philosophers > of science have discovered in the last century or so that is deep, clear, precise, > unexpected, and true that scientists had not discovered long before. Discovered in what field? In philosophy of science or do mean in science? Because if you're talking about the latter, then it's not their job. One might just as well turn it around: scientists in general are not all that good at philosophy of science. They often just tend to be derivative in this area -- i.e., usually accepting a philosophy of science they like and learned that was originated by some philosopher. >> Marx wrote many ridiculous things about economics, IMO. > > I agree. >> Do you believe economists should be ashamed of this? > > Certainly, just as biologists should be ashamed of > Trofim Lysenko. I disagree. Biologists are not responsible for the idiocies of other biologists. >> Shouldn't thinkers be encouraged to be bold rather than always be wary? > > I think saying as late as 1976 (1976!!) that Darwin was unscientific as Popper > did wasn't being bold, it was being STUPID. Let's restore, once more, my full paragraphs: "So? What are folk to do? Censor themselves for fear someone might take their words out of context and use them for other ends, such as Creationists wanting to get their views in classrooms? Shouldn't thinkers be encouraged to be bold rather than always be wary? "Actually, that the demarcation problem is used to decide a legal case is a big problem here. In my reading, there is no widely accepted view on demarcation within the philosophy of science community. That shouldn't matter. Were education not a government program, this wouldn't matter. In fact, from a pedagogical perspective, it shouldn't matter for intro to biology courses, which would likely be geared toward getting the broadly accepted views in a field down -- rather than looking at alternatives in any depth. Surely, alternatives to the reigning paradigm might be raised -- like talking about alchemy or phlogiston theory in a chemistry 101 class, but there wouldn't equal time given. If someone were studying more higher level courses on philosophy of science or history of science, then these sorts of things would likely be given more time. But for grade school kids, it seems about as appropriate or useful as introducing kids learning fractions to non-standard analysis would be." You ignored that in your usual style. Since you've done this so often, I'll ignore you from here on. Regards, Dan Sample my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Jun 13 06:50:06 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 12 Jun 2016 23:50:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision Message-ID: My daughter and son in law decided to circumcise my grandson. I had no idea this was still being done, my error in not keeping up with this frankly disgusting subject. It was also presented to me after it happened in the worst way possible. I won't say a lot more except I have a 420 card which helps a lot with back spasms, but makes a person particularly sensitive to emotionally upsetting news. I would not bring this up here at all, but I am committed to reducing the incident of this unnecessary "medical" and in my opinion barbaric procedure of cutting off a most sensitive part of a male's anatomy. It was done to me as a baby and as I have gotten older, it has caused me increasingly serious problems. It has (at least for the time being) destroyed my relation to daughter, son in law, and new grandson One of the "justifications" for them doing it, is that my daughter could not find arguments on the net against circumcision that met her standards for objective research. She figured that the men who had it done to them and later thought it was a bad idea were some of the small number where the circumcision had been botched. There are certainly some who fit that classification, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer We have some people here who are good at designing research studies. I would like to figure out a scientifically valid study. The rate of circumcisions has fallen to slightly under 80% in the US and (from hearsay) is around 50% in California. That should be enough to recruit a significant number of men who were and were not circumcised. I want valid data that can stand peer review and am willing to spend thousands of dollars to get it and put it on the net. I would be interested in data of how list members feel about what was or was not done to them, but it's more important to get a good study design that will produce data that would stand up to peer review. Advice on a study or pointers to people who could design a study or vet the methodology would be highly appreciated. Keith From ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com Mon Jun 13 07:25:50 2016 From: ilsa.bartlett at gmail.com (ilsa) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 00:25:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Some where in my web site, hotlux.com/angel, or the Institute for Rewiring the system, is a rather researched article I wrote Against Circumcision, I convinced my daughter and son in law not to do this thing which was put into law by leaders who wanted to limit the strong masculine energy of their citizens. Like the crime of Fluoride, some modern spin makes people think it is just working on teeth disregarding the nervous system damage, (research at Columbia 30 years ago on Quail and later MIT reviewing research a few weeks ago). So cutting boys leaves lasting psychic damage because of the real gender damage. Religion took up the push against strong men and pushed the false cleanliness soap opera. I am glad there are others who agree this is a harmful unnecessary painful procedure. I vote to stop genital dis-figuration. ciao, ilsa Ilsa Bartlett Institute for Rewiring the System http://ilsabartlett.wordpress.com http://www.google.com/profiles/ilsa.bartlett www.hotlux.com/angel "Don't ever get so big or important that you can not hear and listen to every other person." -John Coltrane On Sun, Jun 12, 2016 at 11:50 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > My daughter and son in law decided to circumcise my grandson. I had > no idea this was still being done, my error in not keeping up with > this frankly disgusting subject. > > It was also presented to me after it happened in the worst way > possible. I won't say a lot more except I have a 420 card which helps > a lot with back spasms, but makes a person particularly sensitive to > emotionally upsetting news. > > I would not bring this up here at all, but I am committed to reducing > the incident of this unnecessary "medical" and in my opinion barbaric > procedure of cutting off a most sensitive part of a male's anatomy. > It was done to me as a baby and as I have gotten older, it has caused > me increasingly serious problems. It has (at least for the time > being) destroyed my relation to daughter, son in law, and new grandson > > One of the "justifications" for them doing it, is that my daughter > could not find arguments on the net against circumcision that met her > standards for objective research. She figured that the men who had it > done to them and later thought it was a bad idea were some of the > small number where the circumcision had been botched. > > There are certainly some who fit that classification, > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer > > We have some people here who are good at designing research studies. > I would like to figure out a scientifically valid study. The rate of > circumcisions has fallen to slightly under 80% in the US and (from > hearsay) is around 50% in California. That should be enough to > recruit a significant number of men who were and were not circumcised. > I want valid data that can stand peer review and am willing to spend > thousands of dollars to get it and put it on the net. > > I would be interested in data of how list members feel about what was > or was not done to them, but it's more important to get a good study > design that will produce data that would stand up to peer review. > > Advice on a study or pointers to people who could design a study or > vet the methodology would be highly appreciated. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Mon Jun 13 10:30:28 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 11:30:28 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: IMHO the strongest arguments are not objective research, but vanilla medical ethics. Permanently surgically altering a child without its consent nor a medical need, and in a bodily region of great significance to many, obviously requires extremely strong and uncontroversial ethical reasons. Safety and some very weakly supported medical benefits would not be enough to support it. It is interesting to compare to female circumcision, a practice that is intensely decried in the West to such an extent that in many places it is a criminal offense to aid it, even when the intervention is microscopic (there are forms that are way less invasive than male circumcision). Here the cultural and religious reasons given in support of it are regarded as too weak to allow the practice, and indeed right-thinking people should work to reduce the support for such reasons. Yet when the similarity to male circumcision is brought about, people typically rally about cultural and religious reasons and think they are solid enough to justify it. From an ethics perspective this is obviously stupid: gender does not matter, and few if any ethicists are willing to say that one cultural system provides valid reasons but the other doesn't. Yet people who are normally amenable to reasoned ethical arguments are often surprisingly unwilling to let go of an imaginary distinction: there is a huge tribal affiliation aspect here, making people willing to defend what would normally be undefensible. My colleague Brian Earp has written extensively on the topic; see the posts at Practical Ethics such as http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2014/02/female-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision-time-to-confront-the-double-standard/ http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2013/03/male-circumcision-and-the-enhancement-debate-harm-reduction-not-prohibition-2/ http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/08/the-aap-report-on-circumcision-bad-science-bad-ethics-bad-medicine/ http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/10/religious-vs-secular-ethics-and-a-note-about-respect/ http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2012/01/georgia-mother-arrested-for-allowing-10-year-old-to-get-a-tattoo/ http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2010/05/a-nick-for-nick-but-nix-to-nicks-for-nickie/ http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/?s=circumcision&search=Search for a bunch of arguments and analysis. I think the important part here is that this links in to some degree to the enhancement debate - this is all about how culture, ethics and bodies intersect. On 2016-06-13 07:50, Keith Henson wrote: > My daughter and son in law decided to circumcise my grandson. I had > no idea this was still being done, my error in not keeping up with > this frankly disgusting subject. > > It was also presented to me after it happened in the worst way > possible. I won't say a lot more except I have a 420 card which helps > a lot with back spasms, but makes a person particularly sensitive to > emotionally upsetting news. > > I would not bring this up here at all, but I am committed to reducing > the incident of this unnecessary "medical" and in my opinion barbaric > procedure of cutting off a most sensitive part of a male's anatomy. > It was done to me as a baby and as I have gotten older, it has caused > me increasingly serious problems. It has (at least for the time > being) destroyed my relation to daughter, son in law, and new grandson > > One of the "justifications" for them doing it, is that my daughter > could not find arguments on the net against circumcision that met her > standards for objective research. She figured that the men who had it > done to them and later thought it was a bad idea were some of the > small number where the circumcision had been botched. > > There are certainly some who fit that classification, > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer > > We have some people here who are good at designing research studies. > I would like to figure out a scientifically valid study. The rate of > circumcisions has fallen to slightly under 80% in the US and (from > hearsay) is around 50% in California. That should be enough to > recruit a significant number of men who were and were not circumcised. > I want valid data that can stand peer review and am willing to spend > thousands of dollars to get it and put it on the net. > > I would be interested in data of how list members feel about what was > or was not done to them, but it's more important to get a good study > design that will produce data that would stand up to peer review. > > Advice on a study or pointers to people who could design a study or > vet the methodology would be highly appreciated. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From sparge at gmail.com Mon Jun 13 11:59:31 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 07:59:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FWIW, when my son was born in '82 we opted out of circumcision for the obvious reasons but he ended up with an infection that necessitated circumcision at ~3 months, which was more traumatic than it is for newborns. I still think routine circumcision should be avoided, but parents need to be aware of the potential for problems and educated on the proper care of an uncircumcised boy. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jun 13 13:21:24 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 08:21:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: FWIW, when my son was born in '82 we opted out of circumcision for the obvious reasons but he ended up with an infection that necessitated circumcision at ~3 months, which was more traumatic than it is for newborns. I still think routine circumcision should be avoided, but parents need to be aware of the potential for problems and educated on the proper care of an uncircumcised boy. Dave An early study of astronauts who had been in space showed that a large buildup of bacteria occurred on uncut men. Men who are uncut need to wash that area faithfully. They can give women infections easily as well as having severe problems themselves. I am cut and never had a problem of any kind with it. It is said that being cut makes it more difficult not to proceed to orgasm during sex - more stimulation occurring to the prepuce. I would not know. bill w On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 6:59 AM, Dave Sill wrote: > FWIW, when my son was born in '82 we opted out of circumcision for the > obvious reasons but he ended up with an infection that necessitated > circumcision at ~3 months, which was more traumatic than it is for > newborns. I still think routine circumcision should be avoided, but parents > need to be aware of the potential for problems and educated on the proper > care of an uncircumcised boy. > > -Dave > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Jun 13 13:10:33 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 06:10:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <005701d1c574$f89e7ef0$e9db7cd0$@att.net> ... On Behalf Of Keith Henson Subject: [ExI] Circumcision >...My daughter and son in law decided to circumcise my grandson. I had no idea this was still being done, my error in not keeping up with this frankly disgusting subject...It was also presented to me after it happened in the worst way possible. I won't say a lot more except I have a 420 card which helps a lot with back spasms, but makes a person particularly sensitive to emotionally upsetting news...Keith _______________________________________________ Keith, thanks for sharing this. Do keep up your courage sir. When my son was born nearly 10 years ago, this topic caused the biggest upheaval in our family's history. My parents stayed out of it, but my bride's parents and sibs (and their brides) were unanimous that this should be done. I was the lone ranger on that topic, but I was adamant as all hell, and won that battle, with 9 fors and 1 very stubborn and determined against. At the end of it all, I am the dad, and I pulled rank. I made the case at the time that we don't have the technology for undoing that (stem cell tech is coming but isn't there yet (otherwise I would undo mine.)) I argued this was not our decision to make, it is his. That one worked out pretty well, for now that my son is coming to the point where he must decide, he is appalled at the notion. I recognize that boys must decide this before they reach adulthood but I would argue now with good evidence, that a 9 yr old boy definitely can make an informed decision on that topic. Given that opportunity to choose and given a break from social pressures, my guess is the circumcision rate would go from half to half a percent. This brings up an interesting related question about the nature of suffering. An argument was presented to me (by a doctor who was respectfully neutral (so he was not advocating for the argument, only introducing me to it (and I do commend the Stanford medical staff involved (all of whom were perfectly and admirably neutral always)))) that babies suffer at the time but don't remember it since the neuronal pathways are being formed and reformed. The notion is that the suffering at the time doesn't count if you don't remember it. I found this whole notion so very annoying and made my position clear: babies do suffer while the circumcision is being performed and it damn well does count. spike From johntc at gmail.com Mon Jun 13 13:49:11 2016 From: johntc at gmail.com (John Tracy Cunningham) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 17:49:11 +0400 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I was circumcised at birth (in 1951) and have never had any problems of any kind. My father (born in 1919) was not circumcised and, so far as I know, also never had any problems. I understand that the research on sexual gratification is unsettled, no good solid findings, conclusions, or consensus either way, although some recent reports say that there's no difference. It's clear that the uncircumcised need to be quite careful on a regular basis to keep it all clean. WHO recommends it universally in areas of high HIV incidence, but no health organization recommends it entirely universally or wants to ban it. If it's going to be done, probably it should be done as young as possible. I see that about 1/3 of males worldwide are circumcised; quite prevalent in Judaism and Islam because of Abraham, and in America. Regards John Dubai On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 3:59 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > FWIW, when my son was born in '82 we opted out of circumcision for the > obvious reasons but he ended up with an infection that necessitated > circumcision at ~3 months, which was more traumatic than it is for > newborns. I still think routine circumcision should be avoided, but parents > need to be aware of the potential for problems and educated on the proper > care of an uncircumcised boy. > > -Dave > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Jun 13 15:43:03 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 11:43:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Anders wrote: > > From an ethics perspective this is obviously stupid: gender does not > matter, and few if any ethicists are willing to say that one cultural > system provides valid reasons but the other doesn't. ### But gender does matter! In our culture men are worthless, except as providers of the material goods that women need to achieve personal growth and fulfillment. Women are the superior gender, to be put on a pedestal and worshipped. No wonder it's fine to cut off a boy's and not fine to cut a girl's wee-wee parts. Luckily, since gender is a social construct, soon we men all will be able to claim womanhood. We won't even have to remove any body parts. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jun 13 16:26:37 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 11:26:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Luckily, since gender is a social construct, soon we men all will be able to claim womanhood. We won't even have to remove any body parts. Rafa? ?It's a comedy, isn't it Rafal? I have been or tried to be a feminist since the 70s. Very few of my Alabama or Mississippi female students had any interest in it, perhaps because of the strident nature of the feminists at that time. But lately I see that many women are still not calling themselves feminists, but are still active for equal pay etc. Totally off the table here, for them, is the idea that biology has anything to do with gender identity. Or any differences in genetic ability, like math, for that matter. Oh well, the women's movement is still relatively young, historically, and no doubt will change yet again as more equality opens up for them. I won't live to see it, but I suspect that at least some changes will happen even in ISlam. Will we ever come to any conclusions about the roles of genetics and environment in men and women? No. Not as long as anything can be said to be superior or inferior. Neither gender will admit inferiority, I suspect. But may be that's just too pessimistic. Science will discover differences. There are clear differences in gender in pain tolerance in favor of women, and men don't seem to squawk about ?it - probably because they just don't know! Or the Big Two: language ability favoring women, and spatial ability favoring men. They don't seem to attract much controversy. Studies: women suffer more when the pain is rather small, but suffer less when the pain is great. bill w On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 10:43 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Anders wrote: > >> >> From an ethics perspective this is obviously stupid: gender does not >> matter, and few if any ethicists are willing to say that one cultural >> system provides valid reasons but the other doesn't. > > > ### But gender does matter! > > In our culture men are worthless, except as providers of the material > goods that women need to achieve personal growth and fulfillment. Women are > the superior gender, to be put on a pedestal and worshipped. No wonder it's > fine to cut off a boy's and not fine to cut a girl's wee-wee parts. > > Luckily, since gender is a social construct, soon we men all will be able > to claim womanhood. We won't even have to remove any body parts. > > Rafa? > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com Mon Jun 13 17:20:12 2016 From: cetico.iconoclasta at gmail.com (Henrique Moraes Machado) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:20:12 -0300 Subject: [ExI] RES: Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <04c801d1c597$da62b2d0$8f281870$@gmail.com> No reason should be needed other than that cutting out a piece of someone without asking for his/her permission is seriously wrong. Research doesn't matter. From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jun 13 20:33:04 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 15:33:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] an ai wrote this script In-Reply-To: References: <050401d1b60e$2a8dd2b0$7fa97810$@att.net> <02f6ea78-ae26-af69-a2c7-4e09c12ec957@aleph.se> Message-ID: ? ? Sorry for the late response, but - yes. The keyword you want is "autocomposer". I used one back in the late 1990s to generate the background music for a game I wrote. http://www.wingedcat.org/music/ if you want to judge for yourself. It did require me to bin-sort the good ones from the less listenable ones, and do a bit of manual editing...but again, this was 1990s. I can not help but think there's better stuff out there now, if you look. adrian Thanks! Just for fun I Googled for novels written by AIs and found one that made a cut in Japan for some prize. So these things are coming fast - as Dilbert's Dogbert said "Information is coming at you like a fire hose aimed at a teacup." Thing is, how do they code for originality in music and literature when we can't define or measure it? And think of the selectivity, say in music: this note to follow that one, played on this instrument, at this loudness level, at this tempo, to be followed by another note, accompanied by a choice of hundreds of other instruments and their notes, and so on. And great musicians know which of these will work to obtain his goal. For pop music, with its typically unchanging loudness level. unchanging instrumentation, unchanging sadness or happiness or whatever mood, this will be fairly easy. (For real genius in pop music, listen to the tracts from Ishtar - just perfectly so-so amateur - a misunderstood film and music) For classical, the 20th century was a bit of anything goes, so an AI piece might be accepted well in some quarters. To do Baroque, with all of its rules, is easy. I might even like some of it, snob that I am. I hope all of this goes fast - very fast. I want to read and hear it. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Jun 13 20:47:50 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 13:47:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> >? Behalf Of Rafal Smigrodzki Subject: Re: [ExI] Circumcision On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 6:30 AM, Anders > wrote: >From an ethics perspective this is obviously stupid: gender does not matter, and few if any ethicists are willing to say that one cultural system provides valid reasons but the other doesn't. >?### ? ? >?Luckily, since gender is a social construct, soon we men all will be able to claim womanhood. We won't even have to remove any body parts. Rafa? I was at the Exploratorium Wednesday and noticed something on the restroom doors. Remember when they used to tell you which gender went where? If you look at the photo on the right, below the triangle, you can see where they perhaps recently removed the sign which says which gender. So OK then, suppose I really don?t remember which of these go with which (I really don?t.) And suppose I go into my best guess and there?s an adolescent girl in there who shrieks and runs out terrified? Is everyone still hip and mod and with it and all that? Is not this whole thing introducing risk that her father might be standing outside the restroom ready to belt me? Is not this scheme of mystery-restroom introducing risk? Is there any remaining justification for removing all gender references on restrooms? Does that apply to locker rooms? And if we are really all one gender now, why do the blind get a break? They can still tell which is which, since they learned those two symbols by feel. The museum needs to put both symbols on both restrooms, ja? And if so, do they install urinals in the one or remove them from the other? Oh I am soooo not hip. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 19365 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 18511 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6600 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6145 bytes Desc: not available URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Jun 13 21:20:01 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 14:20:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] EP posting from another list Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Ben Collins ben at bencollins.me [lifeboatfoundation] wrote: > > Every day I feel more like an alien. Know the feeling, for me it dates back to the late 50s. > All these people with degrees and accomplishments and super-serious-sounding-speeches? > > Listen up, human beings, > > The truth is that war is stupid and everyone knows it, yet we stand around like asshat clowns who were born yesterday. You are fundamentally wrong about war itself being stupid. It is a species wide trait, and such behavior does not become a species wide trait without there being a damn good and rational reason at the gene level as to why it evolved. War behavior, as a response to certain perceived environment conditions, is wired into human brains by evolution. I have been talking about this for a long time. It's something people don't want to accept. Now it is entirely possible for behaviors that evolved long ago to become maladaptive. Plenty of examples, like mass charges into an enemy when technology has advance to them having machine guns. > Nuclear weapons are the stupidest thing that stupid could stupid. > Every Single Human Besides Like Twelve Of Them: ?War is stupid. In particular, nuclear weapons are stupid. Go away." > > The Twelve: ?Well, we like war. And, you can?t do anything about it. Deal.? > > Billions of humans: ?WWWWWWHhhhhhhyyyyyYYY???? You are making another fundamental error, thinking that war is something that happens from the top down. That's just not the case. The driver for war was and still is bottom up, really bottom up. Here is what Azar Gat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azar_Gat says about it. "In conclusion, let us understand more closely the evolutionary calculus that can make the highly dangerous activity of fighting over resources worthwhile. In our societies of plenty, it might be difficult to comprehend how precarious people's subsistence in pre-modern societies was (and still is). The spectre of hunger and starvation always loomed over their heads. Affecting both mortality and reproduction (the latter through human sexual appetite and women's fertility), it constantly, in varying degrees, trimmed down their numbers, acting in combination with disease. Thus, struggle over resources was very often evolutionarily cost-effective." A longer expansion of his can be found here: http://web.archive.org/web/20100530133845/http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf snip > > I see failure after failure. Which is about what you should expect when the nature of the problem is not understood. Unfortunately, while the EP approach leads to understanding, I have not found it really useful to proposing solutions. For example, the EP analysis of why the IRA went out of business is that they lost the population support. Why? The local economy started to improve faster than the population growth. From EP models, you expect that to reduce then finally shut off the spread and effect of xenophobic memes. The key here is "faster than the population growth", improving income per capita. Population growth slowed down because (for reasons not that well understood) the Irish women reduced the number of kids they had, eventually to the European norm of replacement that developed after WW II. Again, lots of speculation, no real understanding of why that happened, though educating women is strongly correlated with small families. If the EP model is right, then we can shut off the spread of xenophobic memes (that lead in the direction of war) by improving the prospects for higher income per capita. It doesn't matter which, the Chinese have done both. It is hard see how this might happen to some cultures. It does seem to be happening to Persian/Islamic culture. The women there have the birth rate coming down to replacement. It's hard to imagine it happening soon enough to matter to Arab/Islamic culture where in some places women have a status not much different from slaves. The other side, improving world wide income by cheap energy from space or something else, I work on. But it's not likely to have much of an effect (except on perceptions) before war takes off and seriously reduces the population. From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jun 13 22:01:30 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 17:01:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] EP posting from another list In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The other side, improving world wide income by cheap energy from space or something else, I work on. But it's not likely to have much of an effect (except on perceptions) before war takes off and seriously reduces the population. ? keith? I seem to recollect (which counts as once having amassed an incredible array of excellent studies proving my point) that wars do not in fact reduce population by much, and replacement tends to be quick. bill w On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 4:20 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 11:57 AM, Ben Collins ben at bencollins.me > [lifeboatfoundation] wrote: > > > > Every day I feel more like an alien. > > Know the feeling, for me it dates back to the late 50s. > > > All these people with degrees and accomplishments and > super-serious-sounding-speeches? > > > > Listen up, human beings, > > > > The truth is that war is stupid and everyone knows it, yet we stand > around like asshat clowns who were born yesterday. > > You are fundamentally wrong about war itself being stupid. It is a > species wide trait, and such behavior does not become a species wide > trait without there being a damn good and rational reason at the gene > level as to why it evolved. War behavior, as a response to certain > perceived environment conditions, is wired into human brains by > evolution. I have been talking about this for a long time. It's > something people don't want to accept. > > Now it is entirely possible for behaviors that evolved long ago to > become maladaptive. Plenty of examples, like mass charges into an > enemy when technology has advance to them having machine guns. > > > Nuclear weapons are the stupidest thing that stupid could stupid. > > > Every Single Human Besides Like Twelve Of Them: ?War is stupid. In > particular, nuclear weapons are stupid. Go away." > > > > The Twelve: ?Well, we like war. And, you can?t do anything about it. > Deal.? > > > > Billions of humans: ?WWWWWWHhhhhhhyyyyyYYY???? > > You are making another fundamental error, thinking that war is > something that happens from the top down. That's just not the case. > The driver for war was and still is bottom up, really bottom up. Here > is what Azar Gat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Azar_Gat says about it. > > "In conclusion, let us understand more closely the evolutionary > calculus that can make the highly dangerous activity of fighting over > resources worthwhile. In our societies of plenty, it might be > difficult to comprehend how precarious people's subsistence in > pre-modern societies was (and still is). The spectre of hunger and > starvation always loomed over their heads. Affecting both mortality > and reproduction (the latter through human sexual appetite and women's > fertility), it constantly, in varying degrees, trimmed down their > numbers, acting in combination with disease. Thus, struggle over > resources was very often evolutionarily cost-effective." > > A longer expansion of his can be found here: > > http://web.archive.org/web/20100530133845/http://cniss.wustl.edu/workshoppapers/gatpres1.pdf > > snip > > > > I see failure after failure. > > Which is about what you should expect when the nature of the problem > is not understood. > > Unfortunately, while the EP approach leads to understanding, I have > not found it really useful to proposing solutions. > > For example, the EP analysis of why the IRA went out of business is > that they lost the population support. Why? The local economy > started to improve faster than the population growth. From EP models, > you expect that to reduce then finally shut off the spread and effect > of xenophobic memes. The key here is "faster than the population > growth", improving income per capita. Population growth slowed down > because (for reasons not that well understood) the Irish women reduced > the number of kids they had, eventually to the European norm of > replacement that developed after WW II. Again, lots of speculation, > no real understanding of why that happened, though educating women is > strongly correlated with small families. > > If the EP model is right, then we can shut off the spread of > xenophobic memes (that lead in the direction of war) by improving the > prospects for higher income per capita. It doesn't matter which, the > Chinese have done both. > > It is hard see how this might happen to some cultures. It does seem > to be happening to Persian/Islamic culture. The women there have the > birth rate coming down to replacement. It's hard to imagine it > happening soon enough to matter to Arab/Islamic culture where in some > places women have a status not much different from slaves. > > The other side, improving world wide income by cheap energy from space > or something else, I work on. But it's not likely to have much of an > effect (except on perceptions) before war takes off and seriously > reduces the population. > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Jun 13 22:48:37 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 15:48:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 2:02 PM, "spike" wrote: > . . . That will mean text deleted, can't use the word I used to. > At the end of it all, I am the dad, and I pulled rank. I was not informed that it was going to be done till after it happened. Probably would not have made any difference, but at least the father would have known in advance that it would damage if not end our business relation. > . . . > Given that opportunity to choose and > given a break from social pressures, my guess is the circumcision rate would > go from half to half a percent. I think the same. The question is how to do it. I could still use advice on how to do meaningful research on the question. There are plenty of men around both ways. How can we generate valid survey information on how they feel about what was done or not done to them that might influence parents? Does it change with age? I didn't start to have really annoying problems until I was over 60. > This brings up an interesting related question about the nature of > suffering. An argument was presented to me (by a doctor who was > respectfully neutral (so he was not advocating for the argument, only > introducing me to it (and I do commend the Stanford medical staff involved > (all of whom were perfectly and admirably neutral always)))) that babies > suffer at the time but don't remember it since the neuronal pathways are > being formed and reformed. The notion is that the suffering at the time > doesn't count if you don't remember it. This was part of the justification for the very light sentence handed out in a rape on a woman passed out behind a dumpster at Stanford. Huge flapping in the news over it, they may recall the judge. > I found this whole notion so very > annoying and made my position clear: babies do suffer while the circumcision > is being performed and it damn well does count. > spike, the question is what can be done? It's a depressing read, but https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer#Legacy "Only a few years after David Reimer's birth, Canada began taking a stance against infant circumcision, and it is now uncommon there.[13] I highly appreciate the other responses, particularly Anders. Will read and use the references. It's been more than a week and I am still so upset about this that I am find it hard to keep track of time and get things done. I have a talk at a conference this week on power satellites that I can't cancel. That part is a defect in my personality. Excessive empathy makes it painful for me to watch most movies. Keith From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jun 13 23:05:35 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 19:05:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?=E2=80=8BPopper_and_unscientific_theories?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 Dan TheBookMan wrote: > >> ?>? >> OK lets talk about testable predictions. If the universe were a finite >> ? 4D >> hypersphere >> ? >> then if you kept moving in a straight line you'd eventually come back to >> ? >> were you started, and if we look at the variation in the microwave >> ? >> background radiation in one part of the sky we'd expect it to match up >> ? >> with the pattern >> ? ? >> 180 degrees away, but we observe no such correlation. >> ? >> That could be explained if the universe is larger that 13.8 billion light >> ? >> years, the light informing us of such a correlation hasn't had time to >> ? >> reach us and in a expanding acceleration universe it never will. But >> ? >> that's not testable, Popper would say we're not allowed to hypothesize >> ? >> about places we can never observe, therefore things must be the way >> ? >> things seem to be and the Earth is at the center of the universe. > > > ?> ? > Let me state this a different way: Where does Popper hold this view? > Nowhere because Popper died ? in 1994, 5 years before the acceleration of the universe was discovered and more than 10 years before the variation in the microwave background radiation and lack of correlation with the pattern 180 degrees from it was discovered. But if we now strictly ? follow Popper's formula for doing science the conclusion is the Earth must be at the center of the universe.? ? > ?> ? > My understanding is that he's not against positing unobservables in > scientific theories -- which unobservable parts of the universe would be, > be they subatomic particles or regions of space not open to inspection. > ? Subatomic particles ? are observable ?and theories about them are testable and that's why the LHC was built, but stars more distant than 13.8 billion light years are not observable and NEVER will be, therefore Popper would say a scientist should never think about them. > ?> ? > I'm also not sure why you cut out the rest of my post > ?I include enough of a post to enable a reader to know what I am responding to, I see no reason to repeat more, anybody who wants to read the entire post can do so in about .07 seconds, they don't need my help. . ?>? > The same might be said of historians of science. Historians of science > don't make new discoveries about cosmology and don't head on over to CERN > with new proposals on particle physics. ? A ? historian ? o f science ? writes about things that humans did in the past and a good one writes about things that ? humans did in the past ? that were true. But ?what do philosopher of science ?write about? Scientists don't learn how to do science from reading philosophy books and those books usually books aren't even good history because the don't describe how science is actually done. ? ?> ? > One can have a demarcation and yet that wouldn't provide with more than > telling science from non-science. ?Well lets see how the 2 most famous philosophers of science did on that. For most of his life Popper thought Darwin was on the unscientific side of that demarcation line, and Ernst Mach thought Special Relativity, General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics were all on the unscientific side on the line, and till the day he died in 1916 Mach even thought it was unscientific for chemists to talk about atoms. > ?> ? > All you've tended to do here is conflate the views of Popper or Mach with > philosophy of science in general. ?Popper and Mach are the best known philosophers of science, if the philosophy of science isn't what philosophers of science ? talk about then what on earth is the philosophy of science ??? ?> ? > Popper's falsification is wildly popular amongst scientists. ?It's not "? Popper's falsification ?", Popper doesn't own the idea and didn't invent it. Theories that weren't metaphysical ?drivel were popular among natural philosophers long before Popper was born, and long before the word "scientist" was even coined. And you still haven't met the challenge I gave you in my last post: Tell me one thing, just one thing, that people who call themselves philosophers of science have discovered in the last century or so that is deep, clear, precise, unexpected, and true that scientists ?or mathematicians ? had not discovered long before ?.? ? John K Clark? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jun 14 00:45:39 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 19:45:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > I found this whole notion so very > annoying and made my position clear: babies do suffer while the circumcision > is being performed and it damn well does count. spike Now what is a psychologist to make of this? Some of the psychoanalytic persuasion might make a case that an incident of this kind could change the adult personality in a significant way, particularly since it is of a sexual nature. No one can supply any data of any kind that would prove or disprove this notion. Thus one can argue either side of it and not meet a persuasive counterargument. I can imagine that the vast majority of circumcisions are done because of tradition in the family, or tradition in a group, such as the Jews. I suspect that few decisions to do it are motivated by health reasons, but that reason may be increasing. I was a very independent and willful child and teen. My parents did not punish me much at all. I could take a position that they did not do what they should have done and my personality suffered for it. Thus I could resent the upbringing that I had. I could harp on it all my life and blame them for my failures. Unlike circumcision, my upbringing could not be reversed. If this scenario obtained I might be a neurotic or a drug addict or alcoholic, always getting treatment but never getting well. The Eagles had a song: Get Over It, which was a satire on all the troubles country songs harped on. This is one of my theme songs. What good does it do to berate parents, who are long dead in my case, for the way they raised me? It just produces stress and the thousands of unfortunate things it can cause. Of what use is outrage? My person opinion is that the physician is correct: the baby will not form any long term memories of pain and trauma occurring in early infancy, and thus no psychological damage will ensue, unless he becomes resentful of what was done to him. As you know, when dealing with a minor, all that is needed is implied consent, which is provided by the parents' requesting the procedure. No one's childhood is perfect. No one's parents always did the right things, and sometimes they didn't even know what the right thing was, and so tradition held. Now I do think that pertinent studies should be done, though I very much doubt if anything definitive will come of it. Even if something does and it's negative, I suspect that tradition will overwhelm it. Many traumas happen in infancy and childhood and I think it's impossible to point at one of them and say that it is a cause of some adult characteristic. The trauma itself is not important in any case. It is the person's recovery from it that matters. In a very real sense, having an easy life does not prepare one for the capricious indignities and vicissitudes that make up a normal life. Learning to cope with frustration is essential. If a child has no frustration we must provide him with some! Nothing above is intended to make light of anyone's concern. bill w On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 2:02 PM, "spike" wrote: > > > . . . > > That will mean text deleted, can't use the word I used to. > > > At the end of it all, I am the dad, and I pulled rank. > > I was not informed that it was going to be done till after it > happened. Probably would not have made any difference, but at least > the father would have known in advance that it would damage if not end > our business relation. > > > . . . > > > Given that opportunity to choose and > > given a break from social pressures, my guess is the circumcision rate > would > > go from half to half a percent. > > I think the same. The question is how to do it. I could still use > advice on how to do meaningful research on the question. There are > plenty of men around both ways. How can we generate valid survey > information on how they feel about what was done or not done to them > that might influence parents? Does it change with age? I didn't > start to have really annoying problems until I was over 60. > > > This brings up an interesting related question about the nature of > > suffering. An argument was presented to me (by a doctor who was > > respectfully neutral (so he was not advocating for the argument, only > > introducing me to it (and I do commend the Stanford medical staff > involved > > (all of whom were perfectly and admirably neutral always)))) that babies > > suffer at the time but don't remember it since the neuronal pathways are > > being formed and reformed. The notion is that the suffering at the time > > doesn't count if you don't remember it. > > This was part of the justification for the very light sentence handed > out in a rape on a woman passed out behind a dumpster at Stanford. > Huge flapping in the news over it, they may recall the judge. > > > I found this whole notion so very > > annoying and made my position clear: babies do suffer while the > circumcision > > is being performed and it damn well does count. > > > spike, the question is what can be done? > > It's a depressing read, but > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Reimer#Legacy > > "Only a few years after David Reimer's birth, Canada began taking a > stance against infant circumcision, and it is now uncommon there.[13] > > I highly appreciate the other responses, particularly Anders. Will > read and use the references. > > It's been more than a week and I am still so upset about this that I > am find it hard to keep track of time and get things done. I have a > talk at a conference this week on power satellites that I can't > cancel. > > That part is a defect in my personality. Excessive empathy makes it > painful for me to watch most movies. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Jun 14 03:42:32 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 13 Jun 2016 20:42:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002e01d1c5ee$c9696170$5c3c2450$@att.net> On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 5:48 PM, Keith Henson > wrote: On Mon, Jun 13, 2016 at 2:02 PM, "spike" > wrote: >>? At the end of it all, I am the dad, and I pulled rank.. >?That part is a defect in my personality. Excessive empathy makes it painful for me to watch most movies?Keith _______________________________________________ Keith, it is unfortunate to have learned of this event under such strained circumstances. Do let me join the rest of the regulars, your friends and kindred spirits on this internet hangout in offering congratulations and best wishes on the arrival of your grandson. May he bring much joy into the lives of his grandparents, as babies do so well. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jun 14 13:16:36 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 14:16:36 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> Message-ID: On 13 June 2016 at 21:47, spike wrote: > I was at the Exploratorium Wednesday and noticed something on the restroom > doors. Remember when they used to tell you which gender went where? > > > > If you look at the photo on the right, below the triangle, you can see > where they perhaps recently removed the sign which says which gender. > > > > [image: image006] > [image: image005] > > > So OK then, suppose I really don?t remember which of these go with which > (I really don?t.) And suppose I go into my best guess and there?s an > adolescent girl in there who shrieks and runs out terrified? Is everyone > still hip and mod and with it and all that? Is not this whole thing > introducing risk that her father might be standing outside the restroom > ready to belt me? Is not this scheme of mystery-restroom introducing > risk? Is there any remaining justification for removing all gender > references on restrooms? Does that apply to locker rooms? And if we are > really all one gender now, why do the blind get a break? They can still > tell which is which, since they learned those two symbols by feel. The > museum needs to put both symbols on both restrooms, ja? And if so, do they > install urinals in the one or remove them from the other? > > > > I have never seen those type of signs, so did some searching. First searches didn't find them. But eventually I found the solution. Apparently they are California ADA standard signs. (American Disabilities Act). But to comply with Federal statute, California requires two signs. This two sign requirement evolved because the state adopted accessible restroom sign requirements prior to the Federal Government adopting its own standards in the 1990 ADA. So there should have been another sign on the wall to the right of each restroom door. For the full story see: https://www.compliancesigns.com/media/resource-bulletins/CRB-CA-Title-24.pdf BillK -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6600 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6145 bytes Desc: not available URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Jun 14 14:49:52 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:49:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> Message-ID: Regarding suffering and forgetting it: consider twilight anesthesia. When you get your wisdom teeth pulled they dope you up hard on a combination of opiate painkillers (fentanyl) and anxiolytic GABA agonists (midazolam). Midazolam is also a potent producer of retrograde amnesia. You are aware the entire time they massacre your mouth, but you forget. What are the morals of that? It squicks me out for sure. I'm circumcised and I think it's kind of cool to mutilate your genitals just to separate your clan from others, but I'm also a wack job and obviously biased and unable to view the other perspective. I think it's fucked up. There's a guy at the University of Chicago where I went who protests every day against circumcision. He has a lot if good info--they used to do female circumcision at the U of C hospital until the SEVENTIES--that's cutting off the clitoris. If that's true it's fucked. It's fucked in general. Did anyone else here go to my school btw? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jun 14 15:24:38 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 10:24:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> Message-ID: ?That part is a defect in my personality. Excessive empathy makes it painful for me to watch most movies?Keith *Nah - not a defect. How do I know? I am supersensitive too. I went from a teen who liked pro wrestling (until I found out that they applied for membership in the Actor's Union), Friday Night Fights and any kind of movie, to an adult who skips over war or fight scenes in books or movies. I went from a young man who could walk through a mentally handicapped hospital full of every kind of mutilated human to an older adult who has to turn away from the TV when a Down's child appears.* *Defect? I'd call it a blessing.* *It does keep me away from enjoying many things that other people do, or working with mentally and physically maimed people. I have quit going to funerals because I break down - very badly - and call attention to myself. If I dwelt on it for too long, I could get really upset about the death of a family pet that happened years ago.* *I am not scarred because of this trait, but I think some are - have seen just too much damage to human beings. If I were in charge of the military I would see to it that people like myself don't go into combat because they are sure to get post traumatic stress syndrome, and maybe have nightmares the rest of their lives, not to mention the hundreds of suicides our military people are committing. These people aren't sissies and neither am I. We are not in control of our limbic systems' thresholds. More exposure makes it worse, not better. (Increased response with repeated stimuli is called sensitization, the opposite of 'getting used to it', sometimes called desensitization.)* *bill w* On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 8:16 AM, BillK wrote: > On 13 June 2016 at 21:47, spike wrote: > >> I was at the Exploratorium Wednesday and noticed something on the >> restroom doors. Remember when they used to tell you which gender went >> where? >> >> >> >> If you look at the photo on the right, below the triangle, you can see >> where they perhaps recently removed the sign which says which gender. >> >> >> >> [image: image006] >> [image: image005] >> >> >> So OK then, suppose I really don?t remember which of these go with which >> (I really don?t.) And suppose I go into my best guess and there?s an >> adolescent girl in there who shrieks and runs out terrified? Is everyone >> still hip and mod and with it and all that? Is not this whole thing >> introducing risk that her father might be standing outside the restroom >> ready to belt me? Is not this scheme of mystery-restroom introducing >> risk? Is there any remaining justification for removing all gender >> references on restrooms? Does that apply to locker rooms? And if we are >> really all one gender now, why do the blind get a break? They can still >> tell which is which, since they learned those two symbols by feel. The >> museum needs to put both symbols on both restrooms, ja? And if so, do they >> install urinals in the one or remove them from the other? >> >> >> >> > I have never seen those type of signs, so did some searching. > First searches didn't find them. > But eventually I found the solution. Apparently they are California ADA > standard signs. (American Disabilities Act). > But to comply with Federal statute, California requires two signs. > This two sign requirement evolved because the state adopted accessible > restroom sign requirements prior to the Federal Government adopting its own > standards in the 1990 ADA. > > So there should have been another sign on the wall to the right of each > restroom door. > > For the full story see: > > https://www.compliancesigns.com/media/resource-bulletins/CRB-CA-Title-24.pdf > > 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: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image005.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6600 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image006.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 6145 bytes Desc: not available URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Tue Jun 14 17:16:48 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:16:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Meaning of the Universe Message-ID: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KlTh2EGXNgc John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jun 14 19:33:16 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 14:33:16 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ether dreams - idle personal question Message-ID: Did any of you have childhood operations where you got ether as the anesthetic? I had two, and parts of the dreams I had while under are still vivid in my mind. Any of you? I have not heard of anyone else who had this experience. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Tue Jun 14 20:24:53 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 13:24:53 -0700 Subject: [ExI] EP posting from another list Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 6:17 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: (Keith) >> The other side, improving world wide income by cheap energy from space >> or something else, I work on. But it's not likely to have much of an >> effect (except on perceptions) before war takes off and seriously >> reduces the population. > > I seem to recollect (which counts as once having amassed an incredible > array of excellent studies proving my point) that wars do not in fact > reduce population by much, and replacement tends to be quick. This is evolutionary psychology. Wars that happened in historical times are almost irrelevant to gene selection in the stone age. Rapid replacement is an indication that the historical mechanism to keep the human population in check has been broken. That's the second time we broke it, the first being when we got organized enough to keep the big cats from munching on us. Keith From anders at aleph.se Tue Jun 14 20:25:56 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 21:25:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> Message-ID: On 2016-06-14 15:49, Will Steinberg wrote: > > Midazolam is also a potent producer of retrograde amnesia. You are > aware the entire time they massacre your mouth, but you forget. > > What are the morals of that? It squicks me out for sure. > Pain and suffering are different things: one is a sensory stimulus, the other is the aversive emotional reaction (which can be triggered by non-pain stimuli too). Pain is not bad in itself, but one can make a case that suffering is something that is inherently bad. If one argues suffering is inherently bad, then even forgotten suffering is a bad thing. At least it made the world worse when it was occurring. Remembered suffering is not obviously as bad as experiencing suffering: at least pain cannot be remembered vividly (you don't flinch from remembering a bad toothache or an injury, even though it is still unpleasant to remember - compare that to remembering something truly disgusting: you feel similar disgust again). Suffering, being a strong inducer of neural plasticity, can of course change behavior and outlook in important ways. But not all such changes are bad ones. So I would argue that instantaneous suffering matters morally. Just as instantaneous pleasure does. However, the time-bound forms of suffering or happiness have potential for *meaning*. That adds another dimension that can be far more important. Living a life of amnesiac bliss might not be as good as a long dramatic struggle to make the world better. -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jun 14 21:54:53 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 22:54:53 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> Message-ID: On 14 June 2016 at 21:25, Anders wrote: > Pain and suffering are different things: one is a sensory stimulus, the > other is the aversive emotional reaction (which can be triggered by non-pain > stimuli too). Pain is not bad in itself, but one can make a case that > suffering is something that is inherently bad. > > If one argues suffering is inherently bad, then even forgotten suffering is > a bad thing. At least it made the world worse when it was occurring. > > Remembered suffering is not obviously as bad as experiencing suffering: at > least pain cannot be remembered vividly (you don't flinch from remembering a > bad toothache or an injury, even though it is still unpleasant to remember - > compare that to remembering something truly disgusting: you feel similar > disgust again). Suffering, being a strong inducer of neural plasticity, can > of course change behavior and outlook in important ways. But not all such > changes are bad ones. > > So I would argue that instantaneous suffering matters morally. Just as > instantaneous pleasure does. However, the time-bound forms of suffering or > happiness have potential for *meaning*. That adds another dimension that can > be far more important. Living a life of amnesiac bliss might not be as good > as a long dramatic struggle to make the world better. > Remembered suffering = PTSD and that ruins lives. PTSD victims would welcome amnesia. BillK From spike66 at att.net Tue Jun 14 22:04:14 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 15:04:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> Message-ID: <005301d1c688$b1300060$13900120$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] Circumcision On 14 June 2016 at 21:25, Anders wrote: >>... Pain and suffering are different things: one is a sensory stimulus, >> .... Living a life of amnesiac bliss might not be as good as a long dramatic struggle to make the world better. > >...Remembered suffering = PTSD and that ruins lives. >...PTSD victims would welcome amnesia. BillK _______________________________________________ Ja. All this reminds me of the discussion we had in the forum on this topic about ten years ago. I haven't changed much since then, particularly in the area of circumcision: I am not moved by the argument that babies forget everything, therefore it doesn't matter if we intentionally cause them intense GODDAM SUFFERING, just so long as we do it in their first few days on this planet. My friends, circumcised and otherwise, that argument does not have the ring of truth to me. It seems like a hell of a lousy welcome to this life. spike From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jun 15 00:33:25 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 14 Jun 2016 19:33:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> Message-ID: > Pain and suffering are different things: one is a sensory stimulus, the > other is the aversive emotional reaction (which can be triggered by non-pain > stimuli too). anders There are pain clinics that specialize in intractable pain. They do not use drugs, which of course have already been tried. What they do is to convince the person off the above - that they can feel the pain but not suffer - a dissociation if you will. The correlation between pain and suffering is far from linear. Most of you will be familiar with Lazarus Long of Heinlein fame. When he went in for rejuvenation they considered whether to remove certain memories, so this idea is relatively old. anders, as a consequentialist, I think you must argue that pain never remembered and never causing any future harm is not per se wrong. In fact, pain now can mean learning to avoid dangerous things and so is a good thing. A 'life of amnesiac bliss' would mean that a person would never learn to avoid painful situations. Surely circumcision has always been done with a good result in mind, though intentions are irrelevant to some.. Now this may be more debatable: should a person be subjected to capricious pain and humiliation just because it has always been done that way? I am thinking of fraternity initiations. I experienced it directly. When the national organization of lambda chi came down with instructions to eliminate hazing, some ot the brothers objected strongly. They thought that if the new group did not go through what they went through that they were not fully brothers in the frat. I have seen informal initiations and they were at times vicious. bill w On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 4:54 PM, BillK wrote: > On 14 June 2016 at 21:25, Anders wrote: > > Pain and suffering are different things: one is a sensory stimulus, the > > other is the aversive emotional reaction (which can be triggered by > non-pain > > stimuli too). Pain is not bad in itself, but one can make a case that > > suffering is something that is inherently bad. > > > > If one argues suffering is inherently bad, then even forgotten suffering > is > > a bad thing. At least it made the world worse when it was occurring. > > > > Remembered suffering is not obviously as bad as experiencing suffering: > at > > least pain cannot be remembered vividly (you don't flinch from > remembering a > > bad toothache or an injury, even though it is still unpleasant to > remember - > > compare that to remembering something truly disgusting: you feel similar > > disgust again). Suffering, being a strong inducer of neural plasticity, > can > > of course change behavior and outlook in important ways. But not all such > > changes are bad ones. > > > > So I would argue that instantaneous suffering matters morally. Just as > > instantaneous pleasure does. However, the time-bound forms of suffering > or > > happiness have potential for *meaning*. That adds another dimension that > can > > be far more important. Living a life of amnesiac bliss might not be as > good > > as a long dramatic struggle to make the world better. > > > > > Remembered suffering = PTSD and that ruins lives. > > PTSD victims would welcome amnesia. > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Wed Jun 15 09:24:54 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 10:24:54 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> Message-ID: <66169ee9-b98e-c7c7-6a2c-be78098bba67@aleph.se> On 2016-06-14 22:54, BillK wrote: > Remembered suffering = PTSD and that ruins lives. > PTSD victims would welcome amnesia. PTSD is a unusual fault mode of the memory system. Seems to be possible to induce by strong aversive experience setting up a link between a context/memory and amygdala activation, but not everybody is vulnerable. It might be that PTSD sufferers actually can remember suffering, but also that they might be "good" at generating new suffering (memory is reconstructive) or just that it is a bad feedback loop of somewhat bad experience triggering stress and hence a learning signal that reinforces the memory (and this loop then becomes aversive even if the memory isn't). Not sure where the current neuroconsensus is on which alternative is most likely. -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu Wed Jun 15 11:00:09 2016 From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 07:00:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: <66169ee9-b98e-c7c7-6a2c-be78098bba67@aleph.se> References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> <66169ee9-b98e-c7c7-6a2c-be78098bba67@aleph.se> Message-ID: Anders, your supposition of likely memory disruption is supported by the data, and did you see this recent provocative article? What if PTSD if More Physical Than Psychological. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/magazine/what-if-ptsd-is-more-physical-than-psychological.html -Henry > On Jun 15, 2016, at 5:24 AM, Anders wrote: > >> On 2016-06-14 22:54, BillK wrote: >> Remembered suffering = PTSD and that ruins lives. >> PTSD victims would welcome amnesia. > > PTSD is a unusual fault mode of the memory system. Seems to be possible to induce by strong aversive experience setting up a link between a context/memory and amygdala activation, but not everybody is vulnerable. It might be that PTSD sufferers actually can remember suffering, but also that they might be "good" at generating new suffering (memory is reconstructive) or just that it is a bad feedback loop of somewhat bad experience triggering stress and hence a learning signal that reinforces the memory (and this loop then becomes aversive even if the memory isn't). Not sure where the current neuroconsensus is on which alternative is most likely. > > > -- > Dr Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Oxford University > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From anders at aleph.se Wed Jun 15 12:52:15 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:52:15 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> <66169ee9-b98e-c7c7-6a2c-be78098bba67@aleph.se> Message-ID: <5b96820f-8347-dc06-ef94-b5863d326347@aleph.se> People get PTSD without explosions too. Maybe that trauma makes people more vulnerable, but it is not the sole explanation. On 2016-06-15 12:00, Henry Rivera wrote: > Anders, your supposition of likely memory disruption is supported by the data, and did you see this recent provocative article? > > What if PTSD if More Physical Than Psychological. > http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/magazine/what-if-ptsd-is-more-physical-than-psychological.html > > -Henry > >> On Jun 15, 2016, at 5:24 AM, Anders wrote: >> >>> On 2016-06-14 22:54, BillK wrote: >>> Remembered suffering = PTSD and that ruins lives. >>> PTSD victims would welcome amnesia. >> PTSD is a unusual fault mode of the memory system. Seems to be possible to induce by strong aversive experience setting up a link between a context/memory and amygdala activation, but not everybody is vulnerable. It might be that PTSD sufferers actually can remember suffering, but also that they might be "good" at generating new suffering (memory is reconstructive) or just that it is a bad feedback loop of somewhat bad experience triggering stress and hence a learning signal that reinforces the memory (and this loop then becomes aversive even if the memory isn't). Not sure where the current neuroconsensus is on which alternative is most likely. >> >> >> -- >> Dr Anders Sandberg >> Future of Humanity Institute >> Oxford Martin School >> Oxford University >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jun 15 13:39:48 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 08:39:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> <66169ee9-b98e-c7c7-6a2c-be78098bba67@aleph.se> Message-ID: What if PTSD if More Physical Than Psychological NYT title When are we ever going to get over it? I mean the idea that the mind is of two sorts: physical and nonphysical. This so-called mind-body problem has to die. All evidence points to a physical mind and none to any other. "It's all in your mind" is a sort of insult; it's saying that somehow it's not really real. bill w On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 6:00 AM, Henry Rivera wrote: > Anders, your supposition of likely memory disruption is supported by the > data, and did you see this recent provocative article? > > What if PTSD if More Physical Than Psychological. > > http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/12/magazine/what-if-ptsd-is-more-physical-than-psychological.html > > -Henry > > > On Jun 15, 2016, at 5:24 AM, Anders wrote: > > > >> On 2016-06-14 22:54, BillK wrote: > >> Remembered suffering = PTSD and that ruins lives. > >> PTSD victims would welcome amnesia. > > > > PTSD is a unusual fault mode of the memory system. Seems to be possible > to induce by strong aversive experience setting up a link between a > context/memory and amygdala activation, but not everybody is vulnerable. It > might be that PTSD sufferers actually can remember suffering, but also that > they might be "good" at generating new suffering (memory is reconstructive) > or just that it is a bad feedback loop of somewhat bad experience > triggering stress and hence a learning signal that reinforces the memory > (and this loop then becomes aversive even if the memory isn't). Not sure > where the current neuroconsensus is on which alternative is most likely. > > > > > > -- > > Dr Anders Sandberg > > Future of Humanity Institute > > Oxford Martin School > > Oxford University > > > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Wed Jun 15 15:03:43 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:03:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Meaning of the Universe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: John, this video is kind of funny, but god is the sum consciousness of the universe and all possible universes. It makes sense to think that, if disparate neurons make our consciousness, then greater interconnected consciousnesses make a bigger emergent mind. Panpsychism seems much more rational than atheism, which is a lack of belief and a lack of caring about knowledge. The hard, "capital-A-for-" Atheist movement is a head-in-the-sand movement. Most of them know very LITTLE about science, because they say "science explains the world, and that's all there is!" Science is a tool created by humans to gather information. We use it to construct models that are able to make good predictions about the world around us--a world that we only have evidence for because of consciousness. All scientific experiments ever conducted were done through conscious actors. And we have done experiments that show the direct effect of consciousness on matter. Anyway I just woke up and I don't feel like writing something strong but I like Chalmers et al and I think Dennett is a cock. "Atheism" is a nebulous non-existent viewpoint. It is the view that we should NOT try to ask why consciousness exists, or how, or what energy is, or think about the anthropic principles, or think about the observer effect. It is a stupid dogmatic reaction to the stupid dogma of religion. You should explore gnostic and mystic traditions of religion. They aren't the kind of guy-in-the-sky stuff that you might think believing in a greater consciousness has to be. There are no miracles. God is omniscient but not exactly omnipotent, unless you count the fact that it consists of all logical possibilities. But it can't turn you into a tomato without following a causal process that would actually turn you into a tomato. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Jun 15 15:46:22 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:46:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Meaning of the Universe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Will Steinberg wrote: > John, this video is kind of funny, but god is the sum consciousness of the > universe and all possible universes. > That may be your definition of god, but it's hardly, um, universal. The hard, "capital-A-for-" Atheist movement is a head-in-the-sand > movement. Most of them know very LITTLE about science, because they say > "science explains the world, and that's all there is!" > That's a strawman. > "Atheism" is a nebulous non-existent viewpoint. It is the view that we > should NOT try to ask why consciousness exists, or how, or what energy is, > or think about the anthropic principles, or think about the observer > effect. It is a stupid dogmatic reaction to the stupid dogma of religion. > No, it's just a rejection of non-scientific beliefs like the guy-in-the-sky. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Jun 15 16:01:43 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 09:01:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] apparent psycho in starbucks Message-ID: <000001d1c71f$3665a640$a330f2c0$@att.net> A man showed up in Starbucks this morning. He ordered coffee, sat down and began drinking. He sat there alone saying nothing, no laptop, no Gameboy, no iPad, no iPod, no iAnything, not even an iPhone; he just sat there drinking coffee. No one knew what to do. Several nervous patrons escaped out the back. He finished his coffee and left before the authorities arrived. iLess Man is still at large as the local constables are on full alert for a man not talking on a phone and simultaneously not using an electronic device. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Wed Jun 15 16:24:46 2016 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 18:24:46 +0200 Subject: [ExI] apparent psycho in starbucks In-Reply-To: <000001d1c71f$3665a640$a330f2c0$@att.net> References: <000001d1c71f$3665a640$a330f2c0$@att.net> Message-ID: What did the iLess Man look like? Some time ago I saw this guy in a Starbucks actually kissing an actual girlfriend instead of sexting with a porn-chatbot like all responsible inhabitants of the 21st century's world, proudly heading toward the Singularity, should do. Then they both went out to smoke cigarettes, of all things!!! Then they came back inside and kissed again. Some things are really outrageous. When are they going to install the long-promised 24/7 surveillance devices and fast-response robocops? On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 6:01 PM, spike wrote: > > > A man showed up in Starbucks this morning. He ordered coffee, sat down and > began drinking. He sat there alone saying nothing, no laptop, no Gameboy, > no iPad, no iPod, no iAnything, not even an iPhone; he just sat there > drinking coffee. No one knew what to do. Several nervous patrons escaped > out the back. He finished his coffee and left before the authorities > arrived. iLess Man is still at large as the local constables are on full > alert for a man not talking on a phone and simultaneously not using an > electronic device. > > > > spike > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From pharos at gmail.com Wed Jun 15 16:50:25 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 17:50:25 +0100 Subject: [ExI] apparent psycho in starbucks In-Reply-To: <000001d1c71f$3665a640$a330f2c0$@att.net> References: <000001d1c71f$3665a640$a330f2c0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 15 June 2016 at 17:01, spike wrote: > A man showed up in Starbucks this morning. He ordered coffee, sat down and > began drinking. He sat there alone saying nothing, no laptop, no Gameboy, > no iPad, no iPod, no iAnything, not even an iPhone; he just sat there > drinking coffee. No one knew what to do. Several nervous patrons escaped > out the back. He finished his coffee and left before the authorities > arrived. iLess Man is still at large as the local constables are on full > alert for a man not talking on a phone and simultaneously not using an > electronic device. > Very suspicious. Obviously a psycho with no friends. Otherwise he would be updating his Facebook status with a photo of the coffee cup. Our friends are all eagerly awaiting our next food consumption update! BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jun 15 16:53:04 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:53:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Meaning of the Universe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Panpsychism seems much more rational than atheism, which is a lack of belief and a lack of caring about knowledge. will You can be excused only because you are young. And maybe not then. No one in this group or any other group cares more about knowledge than I do. Knowledge = science, and I am a scientist, as are most in this group, and maybe many of them are atheists (though I prefer 'naturalist', which says what you are, not what you are not). Atheism is rampant among scientists. As for panpsychism I am almost afraid to ask. If telepathy existed it might make some kind of sense. And what has consciousness got to do with atheism or science? It just is. An elemental. I reject metaphysics in its strict definition - something beyond the physical. That includes religion. bill w On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:46 AM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Will Steinberg > wrote: > >> John, this video is kind of funny, but god is the sum consciousness of >> the universe and all possible universes. >> > > That may be your definition of god, but it's hardly, um, universal. > > The hard, "capital-A-for-" Atheist movement is a head-in-the-sand >> movement. Most of them know very LITTLE about science, because they say >> "science explains the world, and that's all there is!" >> > > That's a strawman. > > >> "Atheism" is a nebulous non-existent viewpoint. It is the view that we >> should NOT try to ask why consciousness exists, or how, or what energy is, >> or think about the anthropic principles, or think about the observer >> effect. It is a stupid dogmatic reaction to the stupid dogma of religion. >> > > No, it's just a rejection of non-scientific beliefs like the > guy-in-the-sky. > > -Dave > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jun 15 16:54:47 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:54:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] apparent psycho in starbucks In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1c71f$3665a640$a330f2c0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:50 AM, BillK wrote: > On 15 June 2016 at 17:01, spike wrote: > > A man showed up in Starbucks this morning. He ordered coffee, sat down > and > > began drinking. He sat there alone saying nothing, no laptop, no > Gameboy, > > no iPad, no iPod, no iAnything, not even an iPhone; he just sat there > > drinking coffee. No one knew what to do. Several nervous patrons > escaped > > out the back. He finished his coffee and left before the authorities > > arrived. iLess Man is still at large as the local constables are on full > > alert for a man not talking on a phone and simultaneously not using an > > electronic device. > > > > Very suspicious. Obviously a psycho with no friends. Otherwise he > would be updating his Facebook status with a photo of the coffee cup. > Our friends are all eagerly awaiting our next food consumption update! > > BillK > ?I'm sorry everyone. That was me. bill w? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Jun 15 16:52:25 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 09:52:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] apparent psycho in starbucks In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1c71f$3665a640$a330f2c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <001a01d1c726$4c13dd70$e43b9850$@att.net> >... Behalf Of Giulio Prisco Subject: Re: [ExI] apparent psycho in starbucks >...What did the iLess Man look like? No description necessary Giulio. He should be easy to spot out on the street doing that (not using electronics.) >...Some time ago I saw this guy in a Starbucks actually kissing an actual girlfriend... Heterosexuality on open display. The mind reels. >...Then they both went out to smoke cigarettes, of all things!!! I saw one of those last year too, the old non-vaping variety, made from some sort of plant leaf. I didn't even know those could still be procured, or that the requisite ignition devices still exist. >...Some things are really outrageous. When are they going to install the long-promised 24/7 surveillance devices and fast-response robocops? We need that, and we need it soon. Disconnected unnetworked lone wolves are a clear and present danger. The Starbucks owner at 7th and Fremont is downplaying the whole incident. He didn't witness it himself but he says five other Starbucks owners near that intersection have either seen something similar or heard of it. Two of the three Starbucks owners near 8th and Fremont agree. They say it could have just been a guy who liked coffee. Or he accidentally switched off his power strip and the batteries on all his devices ran low simultaneously. Or he was temporarily bandwidth-less due to circumstances beyond his control. Authorities are asking for witnesses to come forward. It might have been the same man who perpetrated all the local electronics-free coffee-drinking incidents in the area, intentionally and persistently not receiving signals where they are freely available. Local activists are organizing a rally for a Minimum Guaranteed Bandwidth. Perhaps there is a way to find and help these lonely people, these modern day Eleanor Rigbys, those who somehow exist and survive below the radar in the hazy dangerous netherworld where electronic communications pass over undetected and responses remain unsent, tragic cases who somehow slip through society's safety internets. spike On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 6:01 PM, spike wrote: > > > A man showed up in Starbucks this morning. He ordered coffee, sat > down and began drinking. He sat there alone saying nothing, no > laptop, no Gameboy, no iPad, no iPod, no iAnything, not even an > iPhone; he just sat there drinking coffee. No one knew what to do. > Several nervous patrons escaped out the back. He finished his coffee > and left before the authorities arrived. iLess Man is still at large > as the local constables are on full alert for a man not talking on a > phone and simultaneously not using an electronic device. > > > > 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 Wed Jun 15 16:57:39 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 09:57:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] apparent psycho in starbucks In-Reply-To: References: <000001d1c71f$3665a640$a330f2c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <002501d1c727$071391b0$153ab510$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] apparent psycho in starbucks On 15 June 2016 at 17:01, spike wrote: > >... iLess Man is still at large > as the local constables are on full alert for a man not talking on a > phone and simultaneously not using an electronic device. >...Very suspicious. Obviously a psycho with no friends. Otherwise he would be updating his Facebook status with a photo of the coffee cup. Our friends are all eagerly awaiting our next food consumption update! BillK _______________________________________________ I agree BillK. We are accustomed to modern search engines which do more and more for us all the time. But at some point we need a search engine that will find all the people who aren't on the internet at all. That subset of people gets smaller and more dangerous every day. We need to find them, perhaps with some kind of face recognition technology coupled with an automatic search engine looking for those who aren't there. spike From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 15 17:13:37 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:13:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] The Meaning of the Universe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Will Steinberg wrote: > ?> ? > god is the sum consciousness of the universe and all possible universes. > ? And if God is a coconut then God exists because coconuts exist. I think words should mean something and if God means an omnipotent omniscient conscious being who created the universe then God does not exist. However many disagree and although they are perfectly willing to abandon the idea of God they are not willing ?to abandon ? the English word "G-O-D" and ?thus ? redefine ?the word? in ?such a general? way that only a fool would say there is no God. So if you redefined "God" to mean the sum of all coconuts then God exists, and ? ? if you redefined "God" to mean the sum of all consciousness ? ? then ?God ? ?also ? exists; but it's a silly word game. > ?> ? > It makes sense to think that, if disparate neurons make our consciousness, > then greater interconnected consciousnesses make a bigger emergent mind. > ?Yes, the different neurons in the bone box on your shoulders are wired together and that makes your consciousness; but your neurons are not wired to my neurons, if they were we'd be the same person, and we're not. ? > ?> ? > atheism, which is a lack of belief and a lack of caring about knowledge. > ?That is just nonsense. ? > ?> ? > The hard, "capital-A-for-" Atheist movement is a head-in-the-sand > movement. Most of them know very LITTLE about science > ?Atheists like ? Richard Dawkins ? or? Lawrence Krauss? > ?> ? > Science is a tool created by humans to gather information. > ?Yes.? > ?> ? > We use it to construct models that are able to make good predictions about > the world around us > ?Yes, and religion uses the fear of death ?to enable some people to gain control of other people. ?> ? > "Atheism" is a nebulous non-existent viewpoint. > ? Nebulous ?? ? non-existent ??? There are just 2 ideas behind atheism, they exist and are clear as a bell: 1) There is no invisible man in the sky who created the universe. 2) Even if there were it would explain nothing about the mystery of existence, > ?> ? > It is the view that we should NOT try to ask why consciousness exists, > ?Not true. Atheists say it's fine to ask any question including why consciousness exists, but what is not fine is to claim to have an answer to a question when you do not. The God hypothesis cannot explain consciousness, in fact "God did it" can never explain anything unless you explain exactly how God did it. Science hasn't explained why there is something rather than nothing, but it has explained why there is a lot rather than very little; Science hasn't explained everything but religion has NEVER explained anything. ?> ? > You should explore gnostic and mystic traditions of religion. ?Why? Name one valid fact about reality discovered by a religious ?person or one good moral act performed by a religious person that a nonreligious person could not have. And yes I'm aware of the fact that Newton was religious, but I think he made his discoveries in spite of his religion not because of it, and a nonreligious person could have made those discoveries well before the 17th century if there were any nonreligious people around back then, but there weren't. However we've learned a thing or two since then and there are now. > ?> ? > it > ?[God] ? > can't turn you into a tomato without following a causal process that would > actually turn you into a tomato. > ?Then what good is God? Why not eliminate ?the middle man, go with the causal process, and kick God to the curb? ?God is a useless fifth wheel. ? ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Jun 15 18:15:58 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 11:15:58 -0700 Subject: [ExI] apparent psycho in starbucks In-Reply-To: <002501d1c727$071391b0$153ab510$@att.net> References: <000001d1c71f$3665a640$a330f2c0$@att.net> <002501d1c727$071391b0$153ab510$@att.net> Message-ID: <002e01d1c731$f769dc50$e63d94f0$@att.net> >. On Behalf Of spike Subject: Re: [ExI] apparent psycho in starbucks >... On Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] apparent psycho in starbucks On 15 June 2016 at 17:01, spike wrote: > >... iLess Man is still at large as the local constables are on full alert for a man not talking on a > phone and simultaneously not using an electronic device. >...Very suspicious. Obviously a psycho with no friends. Otherwise he >would be updating his Facebook status with a photo of the coffee cup. Our friends are all eagerly awaiting our next food consumption update! BillK _______________________________________________ They caught the guy. Using surveillance video, the local authorities apprehended him while he was apparently contemplating another visit to a different Starbucks without electronics. He was seen walking in the direction of five local Starbucks locations when taken down. _______________________________________________ A search of his person and possessions revealed that he had no electronic devices of any kind, not even a watch. Earlier reports were incorrect or were a misunderstanding however. The local police now clarify that the suspect did not say he intended to harm anyone at the Starbucks, he only said he wished to go to a Starbucks, and claims it was only to drink actual coffee. Apparently the man was from outside the area and was leading a kind of double life. His acquaintances back in his home state were shocked. One has commented that he was not surprised something like this could happen. Authorities are holding him on abundance of caution and searching the legal code to compile a collection of charges related to the incident. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image002.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 11434 bytes Desc: not available URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Jun 15 18:41:26 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 13:41:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] The Meaning of the Universe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Then what good is God? Why not eliminate ?the middle man, go with the causal process, and kick God to the curb? ?God is a useless fifth wheel. ? ? John K Clark? Have you read any Joseph Campbell? Every tribe has a set of myths. These are ways of making sense of the world. men, women, war, everything (also check out Carl Jung and the contents of the collective unconscious). An increasing number of people don't seem to need the old myths. I am one and apparently you are another. But some people will go with tradition rather than thinking and reasoning because of the strong social support they get from it (and the possible inadequacy of their thinking and reasoning processes). They also get a free 'get out of Hell' card, so death is not a problem now. If people in this group had one they'd quit thinking about getting iced. Many have said that you cannot understand people until you understand their myths. I tend to agree. Worth study if not worth believing. Most of Mississippi's trouble come from most of us being Baptist, and I am dead serious. bill w On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 12:13 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:03 AM, Will Steinberg > wrote: > > >> ?> ? >> god is the sum consciousness of the universe and all possible universes. >> > > ? > And if God is a coconut then God exists because coconuts exist. I think > words should mean something and if God means an omnipotent omniscient > conscious being who created the universe then God does not exist. However > many disagree and although they are perfectly willing to abandon the idea > of God they are not willing > ?to abandon ? > the English word "G-O-D" and > ?thus ? > redefine > ?the word? > in > ?such a general? > way that only a fool would say there is no God. So if you redefined "God" > to mean the sum of all coconuts then God exists, and > ? ? > if you redefined "God" to mean the sum of all consciousness > ? ? > then > ?God ? > ?also ? > exists; but it's a silly word game. > > >> ?> ? >> It makes sense to think that, if disparate neurons make our >> consciousness, then greater interconnected consciousnesses make a bigger >> emergent mind. >> > > ?Yes, the different neurons in the bone box on your shoulders are wired > together and that makes your consciousness; but your neurons are not wired > to my neurons, if they were we'd be the same person, and we're not. ? > > > >> ?> ? >> atheism, which is a lack of belief and a lack of caring about knowledge. >> > > ?That is just nonsense. ? > > >> ?> ? >> The hard, "capital-A-for-" Atheist movement is a head-in-the-sand >> movement. Most of them know very LITTLE about science >> > > ?Atheists like ? > Richard Dawkins > ? or? Lawrence Krauss? > > >> ?> ? >> Science is a tool created by humans to gather information. >> > > ?Yes.? > > > >> ?> ? >> We use it to construct models that are able to make good predictions >> about the world around us >> > > ?Yes, and religion uses the fear of death ?to enable some people to gain > control of other people. > > ?> ? >> "Atheism" is a nebulous non-existent viewpoint. >> > > ? > Nebulous > ?? ? > non-existent > ??? There are just 2 ideas behind atheism, they exist and are clear as a > bell: > > 1) There is no invisible man in the sky who created the universe. > 2) Even if there were it would explain nothing about the mystery of > existence, > > >> ?> ? >> It is the view that we should NOT try to ask why consciousness exists, >> > > ?Not true. Atheists say it's fine to ask any question including why > consciousness exists, but what is not fine is to claim to have an answer to > a question when you do not. The God hypothesis cannot explain > consciousness, in fact "God did it" can never explain anything unless you > explain exactly how God did it. Science hasn't explained why there is > something rather than nothing, but it has explained why there is a lot > rather than very little; Science hasn't explained everything but religion > has NEVER explained anything. > > ?> ? >> You should explore gnostic and mystic traditions of religion. > > > ?Why? Name one valid fact about reality discovered by a religious ?person > or one good moral act performed by a religious person that a nonreligious > person could not have. And yes I'm aware of the fact that Newton was > religious, but I think he made his discoveries in spite of his religion not > because of it, and a nonreligious person could have made those discoveries > well before the 17th century if there were any nonreligious people around > back then, but there weren't. However we've learned a thing or two since > then and there are now. > > > >> ?> ? >> it >> ?[God] ? >> can't turn you into a tomato without following a causal process that >> would actually turn you into a tomato. >> > > ?Then what good is God? Why not eliminate ?the middle man, go with the > causal process, and kick God to the curb? > > ?God is a useless fifth wheel. ? > > ? John K Clark? > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Jun 15 19:03:20 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 12:03:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> Message-ID: On Jun 14, 2016 2:43 PM, "Anders" wrote: > Pain and suffering are different things: one is a sensory stimulus, the other is the aversive emotional reaction (which can be triggered by non-pain stimuli too). Pain is not bad in itself, but one can make a case that suffering is something that is inherently bad. There is of course this old (by now) take on it: "What do I care for your suffering? Pain, even agony, is no more than information before the senses, data fed to the computer of the mind. The lesson is simple: you have received the information, now act on it. Take control of the input and you shall become master of the output." I wonder if that still holds, given what has been discovered since that came out. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Jun 15 19:25:12 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 12:25:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> Message-ID: <003f01d1c73b$a38c3dd0$eaa4b970$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes There is of course this old (by now) take on it: "What do I care for your suffering? ? There is an even older take on it. The whole notion of circumcision started as a plot used by the sons of Jacob (grandsons of Isaac, great grandsons of Abraham), to rob and slay their enemies. Circumcision was written up in the history book (there was only one) after the fact to pre-date this ugly incident found in the book of Genesis chapter 34, where the lesbian daughter of Jacob was raped by the local prince while her brothers were out having sexual relations with the livestock. The rapist prince fell in love with her so hard he agreed to have his foreskin cut. Apparently this prince was influential enough that he was able to get all the men to do it (perhaps by promising them beautiful 72 ewe calves in the afterlife.) Don?t take my word for it, read it for yourself: 1And Dinah the daughter of Leah, which she bare unto Jacob, went out to see the daughters of the land. 2And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her. 3And his soul clave unto Dinah the daughter of Jacob, and he loved the damsel, and spake kindly unto the damsel. 4And Shechem spake unto his father Hamor, saying, Get me this damsel to wife. 5And Jacob heard that he had defiled Dinah his daughter: now his sons were with his cattle in the field: and Jacob held his peace until they were come. 6And Hamor the father of Shechem went out unto Jacob to commune with him. 7And the sons of Jacob came out of the field when they heard it: and the men were grieved, and they were very wroth, because he had wrought folly in Israel in lying with Jacob's daughter; which thing ought not to be done. 8And Hamor communed with them, saying, The soul of my son Shechem longeth for your daughter: I pray you give her him to wife. 9And make ye marriages with us, and give your daughters unto us, and take our daughters unto you. 10And ye shall dwell with us: and the land shall be before you; dwell and trade ye therein, and get you possessions therein. 11And Shechem said unto her father and unto her brethren, Let me find grace in your eyes, and what ye shall say unto me I will give. 12Ask me never so much dowry and gift, and I will give according as ye shall say unto me: but give me the damsel to wife. 13And the sons of Jacob answered Shechem and Hamor his father deceitfully, and said, because he had defiled Dinah their sister: 14And they said unto them, We cannot do this thing, to give our sister to one that is uncircumcised; for that were a reproach unto us: 15But in this will we consent unto you: If ye will be as we be, that every male of you be circumcised; 16Then will we give our daughters unto you, and we will take your daughters to us, and we will dwell with you, and we will become one people. 17But if ye will not hearken unto us, to be circumcised; then will we take our daughter, and we will be gone. 18And their words pleased Hamor, and Shechem Hamor's son. 19And the young man deferred not to do the thing, because he had delight in Jacob's daughter: and he was more honourable than all the house of his father. 20And Hamor and Shechem his son came unto the gate of their city, and communed with the men of their city, saying, 21These men are peaceable with us; therefore let them dwell in the land, and trade therein; for the land, behold, it is large enough for them; let us take their daughters to us for wives, and let us give them our daughters. 22Only herein will the men consent unto us for to dwell with us, to be one people, if every male among us be circumcised, as they are circumcised. 23Shall not their cattle and their substance and every beast of theirs be ours? only let us consent unto them, and they will dwell with us. 24And unto Hamor and unto Shechem his son hearkened all that went out of the gate of his city; and every male was circumcised, all that went out of the gate of his city. 25And it came to pass on the third day, when they were sore, that two of the sons of Jacob, Simeon and Levi, Dinah's brethren, took each man his sword, and came upon the city boldly, and slew all the males. 26And they slew Hamor and Shechem his son with the edge of the sword, and took Dinah out of Shechem's house, and went out. 27The sons of Jacob came upon the slain, and spoiled the city, because they had defiled their sister. 28They took their sheep, and their oxen, and their asses, and that which was in the city, and that which was in the field, 29And all their wealth, and all their little ones, and their wives took they captive, and spoiled even all thatwas in the house. 30And Jacob said to Simeon and Levi, Ye have troubled me to make me to stink among the inhabitants of the land, among the Canaanites and the Perizzites: and I beingfew in number, they shall gather themselves together against me, and slay me; and I shall be destroyed, I and my house. 31And they said, Should he deal with our sister as with an harlot? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Wed Jun 15 20:44:14 2016 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 21:44:14 +0100 Subject: [ExI] The Meaning of the Universe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5761BE1E.6000502@yahoo.com> Will Steinberg wrote: "Panpsychism seems much more rational than atheism, which is a lack of belief and a lack of caring about knowledge" Atheism has nothing at all to do with 'caring about knowledge', but I'd argue that most atheists care a good deal more about knowledge than most non-atheists, almost by definition. Panpsychism is hardly rational. What evidence is there for it? None. "'Atheism' is a nebulous non-existent viewpoint. It is the view that we should NOT try to ask why consciousness exists, or how, or what energy is, or think about the anthropic principles, or think about the observer effect. It is a stupid dogmatic reaction to the stupid dogma of religion." I really think you need to revisit what the definition of Atheism is. You are totally misrepresenting it. Totally. Atheism has nothing to say about consciousness, energy, the anthropic principle, etc. It is very simply one thing: Absence of belief in a deity. That's it. That's all, there's nothing else to it. Ben Zaiboc From anders at aleph.se Wed Jun 15 21:06:41 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:06:41 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> Message-ID: On 2016-06-15 20:03, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > There is of course this old (by now) take on it: > > "What do I care for your suffering? Pain, even agony, is no more than > information before the senses, data fed to the computer of the mind. > The lesson is simple: you have received the information, now act on > it. Take control of the input and you shall become master of the output." > > I wonder if that still holds, given what has been discovered since > that came out. > I was actually playing that game earlier tonight. Still valid, still words of wisdom. Psychological pain management can be associative or dissociative. The dissociative approach is to ignore the pain and think about or do other things. Associative pain management on the other hand involves focusing on the pain and re-evaluating it so that it does not cause suffering. You could say you mindfully concentrate on it until it loses meaning. Or as brother Lal would say: Once a man has changed the relationship between himself and his environment, he cannot return to the blissful ignorance he left. Motion, of necessity, involves a change in perspective. -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 02:21:03 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 22:21:03 -0400 Subject: [ExI] LIGO found a second Black Hole collision! Message-ID: After analyzing the data from LIGO's brief engineering run the scientists there just announced they have found a second Black Hole merger. A Black Hole of 14 solar masses merged with one of 8 solar masses and produced a Black Hole of 21 solar masses and gravitational waves with 1 solar mass of energy. It happened 1.4 billion light years away, about the same distance as the first merger that was announced a few months ago, but the signal was weaker because the Black Holes involved were smaller (14 and 8 vs 36 and 29) and also because the orbit of the Black Holes was more edge on relative to the Earth. Edge on means the signal is weaker but it also means it's easier to determine the spin, so unlike the first detection this time we can say with certainty that at least one of the Black Holes was spinning. And although weaker the signal lasted longer, almost a full second versus a fifth of a second the first time because being smaller the holes generated waves with higher frequencies that LIGO is more sensitive to. And they're looking at at least one other suspected merger but they're only 85% certain it's real and that's not good enough to claim discovery, but there may be others so there may be a third announcement before long. Not bad for observing for only 18 days. The instrument was running at only one third power but that was still good enough to determine that 2 mirrors 4 kilometers apart had changed their distance by less than a billionth of a nanometer. I can't wait for September when the 2 LIGOs get back online and are joined by a third detector, VIRGO in Italy. Spike's right, this is a great time to be alive! http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103 John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Jun 16 03:16:18 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 15 Jun 2016 20:16:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] LIGO found a second Black Hole collision! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <003c01d1c77d$7415a4f0$5c40eed0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Sent: Wednesday, June 15, 2016 7:21 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] LIGO found a second Black Hole collision! After analyzing the data from LIGO's brief engineering run the scientists there just announced they have found a second Black Hole merger. ?. I can't wait for September when the 2 LIGOs get back online and are joined by a third detector, VIRGO in Italy. Spike's right, this is a great time to be alive! http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.241103 John K Clark Oh my, ja, this is a total orgasm of a time to be living if one is the kind to get jazzed by this sort of thing. Oh so exciting. John the joy of LIGO compensates for the dread I am feeling about the next US president (no I don?t want to restart that distasteful discussion (but would be pleased to discuss more the LIGO results.)) If these LIGO results are correct, we must rethink dark matter and we must go nuts trying to explain why we saw two biggie mergers in just an 18 day window. They are apparently way more common than current theory holds, which is exciting indeed. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 07:02:31 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 00:02:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] The Meaning of the Universe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 10:13 AM, John Clark wrote: > I think words should mean something and if God means an omnipotent > omniscient conscious being who created the universe then God does not > exist. However many disagree and although they are perfectly willing to > abandon the idea of God they are not willing > ?to abandon ? > the English word "G-O-D" and > ?thus ? > redefine > ?the word? > in > ?such a general? > way that only a fool would say there is no God. > Oh God, this debate again. (Sorry, couldn't resist. You're right: redefining the word "God" at the start of a proof and then consistently using that redefinition, invalidates that proof for the purposes of proving the existence of the kind of God that most people are talking about when they say "God".) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 09:36:26 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 02:36:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 6:17 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Unlike circumcision, my upbringing could not be reversed. I read this as saying circumcision can be reversed. Though there seems to be claims to that effect, I don't see it actually being successful. Do you have pointers to support this information? There are a *lot* of men who resent what was done to them without consent and would reverse it if it could be done. > If this scenario > obtained I might be a neurotic or a drug addict or alcoholic, always > getting treatment but never getting well. > > The Eagles had a song: Get Over It, which was a satire on all the troubles > country songs harped on. This is one of my theme songs. What good does it > do to berate parents, who are long dead in my case, for the way they raised > me? It just produces stress and the thousands of unfortunate things it can > cause. Of what use is outrage? I was outraged at the scientology cult. They are now, some 20 years later, coming to an end, with even the father of the cult's leader writing a best seller "Ruthless," and more impressive, the no longer fearful media covering it. I recognize I was only one of a cast of thousands, but I think that answers your question. BTW, in _The Nurture Assumption_ by Judith Rich Harris she makes a case that the influence of parents beyond their genes and providing environment isn't large enough to measure. It's much less important than the children's social group. > My person opinion is that the physician is correct: the baby will not form > any long term memories of pain and trauma occurring in early infancy, and > thus no psychological damage will ensue, unless he becomes resentful of > what was done to him. As you know, when dealing with a minor, all that is > needed is implied consent, which is provided by the parents' requesting the > procedure. How is it that female genital mutilation is a crime, but males get no such protection? I am with Anders and Spike on this issue. Is this exception written into the law? Or is it outright discrimination? > No one's childhood is perfect. No one's parents always did the right > things, and sometimes they didn't even know what the right thing was, and > so tradition held. As I mentioned before, Canada decided there was no medical benefit and quit paying for this bronze age mutilation tradition. It's now rare there, a Canadian friend says there is only one doctor in a 100 km range of Sudbury who will do it. > Now I do think that pertinent studies should be done, though I very much > doubt if anything definitive will come of it. Even if something does and > it's negative, I suspect that tradition will overwhelm it. Many traumas > happen in infancy and childhood and I think it's impossible to point at one > of them and say that it is a cause of some adult characteristic. It depends. In my case, there is no question. I am not sure exactly how early it first developed, but I remember it being a serious problem, interfering with riding a bicycle, by the time I was 60. > The trauma itself is not important in any case. It is the person's > recovery from it that matters. A woman gets drunk or is dosed with Rohypnol and raped. She has no memory of the rape and (other than a bad hangover) does not remember being raped, recovers just fine. Are you making a case that the trauma is not important? > In a very real sense, having an easy life > does not prepare one for the capricious indignities and vicissitudes that > make up a normal life. Learning to cope with frustration is essential. If > a child has no frustration we must provide him with some! I have never seen or even heard of a child who lacked frustration. Keith From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 10:27:45 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:27:45 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> Message-ID: On 15 June 2016 at 22:06, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 2016-06-15 20:03, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> >> There is of course this old (by now) take on it: >> >> "What do I care for your suffering? Pain, even agony, is no more than >> information before the senses, data fed to the computer of the mind. The >> lesson is simple: you have received the information, now act on it. Take >> control of the input and you shall become master of the output." > > > Psychological pain management can be associative or dissociative. The > dissociative approach is to ignore the pain and think about or do other > things. Associative pain management on the other hand involves focusing on > the pain and re-evaluating it so that it does not cause suffering. You could > say you mindfully concentrate on it until it loses meaning. > > Or as brother Lal would say: > Once a man has changed the relationship between himself and his environment, > he cannot return to the blissful ignorance he left. Motion, of necessity, > involves a change in perspective. > I have the feeling that all this philosophising about pain and suffering is all very well and good. But it will get thrown out as soon as raging toothache, bad migraine or gallstone blockage pain arrives. When you are writhing in pain, screaming for codeine, philosophy somehow doesn't seem that important. ;) BillK From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu Thu Jun 16 11:02:49 2016 From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 07:02:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <15A8D9DC-C9B0-4A01-858F-F414C4794E43@alumni.virginia.edu> > On Jun 16, 2016, at 5:36 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 6:17 AM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > >> Unlike circumcision, my upbringing could not be reversed. > I read this as saying circumcision can be reversed. On the Circumcision episode of Penn & Teller Bullshit, they show a guy advocating reversals by stretching the remaining skin forward and doing this regularly to recreate the appearance at least of foreskin. So it's a cosmetic partial reversal of sorts at best. You can stream the episode if you have Showtime or maybe find clips online. -Henry From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 13:48:57 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:48:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: <15A8D9DC-C9B0-4A01-858F-F414C4794E43@alumni.virginia.edu> References: <15A8D9DC-C9B0-4A01-858F-F414C4794E43@alumni.virginia.edu> Message-ID: > Unlike circumcision, my upbringing could not be reversed. > I read this as saying circumcision can be reversed. Well, there's a lot about on the web. Appears to have some success - variable. Like any plastic surgery some will be happy with it and some won't. It won't automatically solve emotional problems such as resentment. bill w bill w On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 6:02 AM, Henry Rivera wrote: > > On Jun 16, 2016, at 5:36 AM, Keith Henson > wrote: > > > > On Tue, Jun 14, 2016 at 6:17 AM, William Flynn Wallace > > wrote: > > > >> Unlike circumcision, my upbringing could not be reversed. > > I read this as saying circumcision can be reversed. > > On the Circumcision episode of Penn & Teller Bullshit, they show a guy > advocating reversals by stretching the remaining skin forward and doing > this regularly to recreate the appearance at least of foreskin. So it's a > cosmetic partial reversal of sorts at best. You can stream the episode if > you have Showtime or maybe find clips online. > -Henry > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 14:04:48 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 09:04:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] outrage Message-ID: In statistics you have the famous GIGO thing. In one of my areas, sexual behavior, you have lying that messes up the surveys. In mental disorders we have data that show that women more than men have neuroses. Problem - when apparent changes occur, are they real or is it bad data? Women, for instance, may be more likely to go get help then men when actually not being any worse than them. As for outrage, it seems that everybody is getting outraged about everything. True? Or is it the reporting? Or is it that the one outraged has far more access to media and getting their views aired than before? Christians get outraged when someone says "Happy Holidays" rather than "Merry Christmas".The LGBT issue is in every newspaper I pick up as well as CNN and Huffington Post. GMO. Muslims. AK 47s. What do you think? Are people more touchy now? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 14:25:18 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 10:25:18 -0400 Subject: [ExI] outrage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:04 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > As for outrage, it seems that everybody is getting outraged about > everything. True? Or is it the reporting? Or is it that the one outraged > has far more access to media and getting their views aired than before? I definitely think the media are a factor. Outrage attracts clicks/viewers/listeners, which attracts advertisers. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Jun 16 14:52:21 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 07:52:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> Message-ID: <00b401d1c7de$b0506160$10f12420$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK >...I have the feeling that all this philosophising about pain and suffering is all very well and good. But it will get thrown out as soon as raging toothache, bad migraine or gallstone blockage pain arrives. When you are writhing in pain, screaming for codeine, philosophy somehow doesn't seem that important. ;) BillK _______________________________________________ Well said sir. Nowthen, why do we subject babies to it? The justification questionable at best, when the risks are well known. I had an idea. In those benighted times of my birth (60s) I would estimate 97 percent of the students had circumcision (based on about one guy in a typical PE class of 30 was uncut.) OK so the argument was made back then that it is bad if boys get teased (he wasn't as far as I know.) So what happens in the transition, when the cut ones become the minority? Are they then singled out as undesirable religious cult minorities? So now since we are being all sensitive and gender all-inclusive, let us create a non-showers PE option in high schools. Some high schools already accept transfers of credits down from the local community college which have no-showers PE classes, such as bowling for instance. That would solve a problem of what to do when some girls don't want to shower in the presence of some dude who claims he feels female inside (why oh why are not American teens exploring the limits of that particular absurdity? (I am so disappointed in them.)) Or... we make accommodations that PE can be taken last period of the day, so that they have a practical option to not dress or shower in the locker room (they can just go home afterwards.) Or... we build a third locker room for other (I do admit I am inherently curious enough to go into that one.) Or... since we think Canada is so enlightened, let us make a law that medical insurance companies have the option of not paying for circumcision (and I don't understand why they would now (It isn't a medical necessity.)) Or... we create a circumcision awareness Kickstarter, buy ads on Babies-R-Us, explain to young mothers that this procedure is unnecessary and brutal, a throwback for when it was used to perpetrate mass murder (Genesis ch 34.) Or... I have more ideas, but that boy I rescued needs attention. spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 15:24:33 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:24:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What is religion? What is god was The Meaning of the Universe Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:36 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> Then what good is God? Why not eliminate ?the middle man, go with the >> causal process, and kick God to the curb? >> >> ?God is a useless fifth wheel. ? > >> ? John K Clark? > > Have you read any Joseph Campbell? Every tribe has a set of myths. These > are ways of making sense of the world. men, women, war, everything (also > check out Carl Jung and the contents of the collective unconscious). What is religion? Why do humans have them at all? I make the case from evolutionary biology (or evolutionary psychology) that religions, every damn one of them, are xenophobic memes. The evolved human capacity for religions is a side effect of wars being "better" for genes at times of ecological overshoot than the alternative of starving in place. From the viewpoint of genes, on average wars, due to population in excess of current ecological carrying capacity, turned out to be 37% better in a simple model. Since population growth and ecological variation created this condition roughly once a generation, that was a hell of a selection. It's no wonder that wars are close to universal among human cultures. >From Wikipedia: "The chronicler Robert the Monk put this into the mouth of Urban II: ... this land which you inhabit, shut in on all sides by the seas and surrounded by the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; nor does it abound in wealth; and it furnishes scarcely food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder one another, that you wage war, and that frequently you perish by mutual wounds." So far this is orthodox EP. Tribes make all sorts of distinctions to dehumanize those they kill in organized attacks. These xenophobic memes are the origins of our religions and religious practices. Simple rules for the last millions of years; If the future looks good, you can trade women with the different ones. If it looks bleak, try to kill them and take their resources. He goes on: "Let therefore hatred depart from among you, let your quarrels end, let wars cease, and let all dissensions and controversies slumber. Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre; wrest that land from the wicked race, and subject it to yourselves ... God has conferred upon you above all nations great glory in arms. Accordingly undertake this journey for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the imperishable glory of the Kingdom of Heaven." > An increasing number of people don't seem to need the old myths. I am one > and apparently you are another. But some people will go with tradition > rather than thinking and reasoning because of the strong social support > they get from it (and the possible inadequacy of their thinking and > reasoning processes). They also get a free 'get out of Hell' card, so > death is not a problem now. If people in this group had one they'd quit > thinking about getting iced. > > Many have said that you cannot understand people until you understand their > myths. More fundamental than the particular local set of myths is why people have myths at all. > I tend to agree. Worth study if not worth believing. Most of > Mississippi's trouble come from most of us being Baptist, and I am dead > serious. "Mississippi came in last in our ranking of state economies. " http://www.businessinsider.com/state-economy-ranking-july-2015-2015-7 I think this is a bigger factor, but it's hard to tell how much culture, including religion, influences income per capita. It is more obvious how low and falling income per capita influences people's view the future being bright or bleak. The Arab Islamic culture, with high population growth and low to negative economic growth is a recipe for war and other violent behavior because people sense bleak futures and that turns up the spread and intensity of xenophobic memes. Keith From spike66 at att.net Thu Jun 16 15:28:27 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 08:28:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] outrage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00c001d1c7e3$bb19d130$314d7390$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace ? Subject: [ExI] outrage ? What do you think? Are people more touchy now? bill w Ja, for a good reason: we can be. It may not seem like it, but we are gradually solving our problems still. We hear so much about the middle class suffering this and that, but really, when you think about it, now is a better time than ever to be poor. Our poor and declining middle class still have hamburger and TV, and plenty of them have internet. If you live in some cities you can get free WiFi from the library without even being all that close to it. The bandwidth isn?t great, but anyone with any WiFi device can get it, so with that, you can educate yourself, you and find where someone is giving away food and clothing (we still can?t do free shelter (that one is difficult (and getting worse.))) So when we no longer need to worry about the basics, we don?t need to worry about our kids getting polio or whooping cough, we don?t really need to worry much about starvation (we still need to worry about housing) we don?t need to worry about a lot of stuff. We have the luxury of being sensitive and touchy. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 16:33:59 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 12:33:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] A Paranormal Computer Message-ID: This program asks you to randomly hit your "f" or "d" key. For me it consistently predicted what key I would hit next well over 50% of the time, usually around 70%. http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nick/aaronson-oracle/ John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 16:38:59 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:38:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] outrage In-Reply-To: <00c001d1c7e3$bb19d130$314d7390$@att.net> References: <00c001d1c7e3$bb19d130$314d7390$@att.net> Message-ID: (we still need to worry about housing) we don?t need to worry about a lot of stuff. We have the luxury of being sensitive and touchy. spike Now there's some wisdom. Most people in history had no time for philosophy or for much grouching. They were too busy trying to stay alive. We have it so good it is just incredible - even the poor, as you say. I honestly do not know what I would do with a lot more money. I have read a couple of articles about SF housing and have wondered why they don't just put up some big tenements for the bus boys and cab drivers and all the rest that service the higher classes. I suppose the land itself is too expensive for that. It will have to be done publicly (take that, you antisocialists). I know zip about urban planning but (of course I have an opinion) it would seem that being near your job is best for all classes. Towns of 50K or less seem ideal to me You can get to know so many more people this way. Big cities are too expensive and now are big targets. bill w On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:28 AM, spike wrote: > > > > > *>?* *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *?* > *Subject:* [ExI] outrage > > > > ? > > > > What do you think? Are people more touchy now? > > > > bill w > > > > > > Ja, for a good reason: we can be. It may not seem like it, but we are > gradually solving our problems still. We hear so much about the middle > class suffering this and that, but really, when you think about it, now is > a better time than ever to be poor. Our poor and declining middle class > still have hamburger and TV, and plenty of them have internet. If you live > in some cities you can get free WiFi from the library without even being > all that close to it. The bandwidth isn?t great, but anyone with any WiFi > device can get it, so with that, you can educate yourself, you and find > where someone is giving away food and clothing (we still can?t do free > shelter (that one is difficult (and getting worse.))) > > > > So when we no longer need to worry about the basics, we don?t need to > worry about our kids getting polio or whooping cough, we don?t really need > to worry much about starvation (we still need to worry about housing) we > don?t need to worry about a lot of stuff. We have the luxury of being > sensitive and touchy. > > > > spike > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 16:41:32 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:41:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: <00b401d1c7de$b0506160$10f12420$@att.net> References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> <00b401d1c7de$b0506160$10f12420$@att.net> Message-ID: (why oh why are not American teens exploring the limits of that particular absurdity? (I am so disappointed in them.)) spike Huh? Please explain bill w On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:52 AM, spike wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On > Behalf > Of BillK > > > >...I have the feeling that all this philosophising about pain and > suffering > is all very well and good. > But it will get thrown out as soon as raging toothache, bad migraine or > gallstone blockage pain arrives. > When you are writhing in pain, screaming for codeine, philosophy somehow > doesn't seem that important. ;) BillK > _______________________________________________ > > > Well said sir. Nowthen, why do we subject babies to it? The justification > questionable at best, when the risks are well known. > > I had an idea. In those benighted times of my birth (60s) I would estimate > 97 percent of the students had circumcision (based on about one guy in a > typical PE class of 30 was uncut.) OK so the argument was made back then > that it is bad if boys get teased (he wasn't as far as I know.) So what > happens in the transition, when the cut ones become the minority? Are they > then singled out as undesirable religious cult minorities? > > So now since we are being all sensitive and gender all-inclusive, let us > create a non-showers PE option in high schools. Some high schools already > accept transfers of credits down from the local community college which > have > no-showers PE classes, such as bowling for instance. That would solve a > problem of what to do when some girls don't want to shower in the presence > of some dude who claims he feels female inside (why oh why are not American > teens exploring the limits of that particular absurdity? (I am so > disappointed in them.)) > > Or... we make accommodations that PE can be taken last period of the day, > so > that they have a practical option to not dress or shower in the locker room > (they can just go home afterwards.) > > Or... we build a third locker room for other (I do admit I am inherently > curious enough to go into that one.) > > Or... since we think Canada is so enlightened, let us make a law that > medical insurance companies have the option of not paying for circumcision > (and I don't understand why they would now (It isn't a medical necessity.)) > > Or... we create a circumcision awareness Kickstarter, buy ads on > Babies-R-Us, explain to young mothers that this procedure is unnecessary > and > brutal, a throwback for when it was used to perpetrate mass murder (Genesis > ch 34.) > > Or... I have more ideas, but that boy I rescued needs attention. > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 16:43:32 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:43:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] A Paranormal Computer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:33 AM, John Clark wrote: > This program asks you to randomly hit your "f" or "d" key. For me it > consistently predicted what key I would hit next well over 50% of the time, > usually around 70%. > > http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nick/aaronson-oracle/ > > John K Clark > ?52% for me bill w? > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 16:50:08 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 11:50:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] What is religion? What is god was The Meaning of the Universe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: this land which you inhabit, shut in on all sides by the seas and surrounded by the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large population; nor does it abound in wealth; and it furnishes scarcely food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder one another, that you wage war, and that frequently you perish by mutual wounds." But we have also developed the capacity for cooperation. I again have to recommend Joshua Greene's book Moral Tribes. Most of you are already aware of Pinker's Better Angels of Our Nature. bill w On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:24 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:36 AM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > >> Then what good is God? Why not eliminate ?the middle man, go with the > >> causal process, and kick God to the curb? > >> > >> ?God is a useless fifth wheel. ? > > > >> ? John K Clark? > > > > Have you read any Joseph Campbell? Every tribe has a set of myths. > These > > are ways of making sense of the world. men, women, war, everything (also > > check out Carl Jung and the contents of the collective unconscious). > > What is religion? Why do humans have them at all? > > I make the case from evolutionary biology (or evolutionary psychology) > that religions, every damn one of them, are xenophobic memes. The > evolved human capacity for religions is a side effect of wars being > "better" for genes at times of ecological overshoot than the > alternative of starving in place. From the viewpoint of genes, on > average wars, due to population in excess of current ecological > carrying capacity, turned out to be 37% better in a simple model. > Since population growth and ecological variation created this > condition roughly once a generation, that was a hell of a selection. > It's no wonder that wars are close to universal among human cultures. > > From Wikipedia: > > "The chronicler Robert the Monk put this into the mouth of Urban II: > > ... this land which you inhabit, shut in on all sides by the seas and > surrounded by the mountain peaks, is too narrow for your large > population; nor does it abound in wealth; and it furnishes scarcely > food enough for its cultivators. Hence it is that you murder one > another, that you wage war, and that frequently you perish by mutual > wounds." > > So far this is orthodox EP. Tribes make all sorts of distinctions to > dehumanize those they kill in organized attacks. These xenophobic > memes are the origins of our religions and religious practices. > Simple rules for the last millions of years; If the future looks good, > you can trade women with the different ones. If it looks bleak, try > to kill them and take their resources. He goes on: > > "Let therefore hatred depart from among you, let your quarrels end, > let wars cease, and let all dissensions and controversies slumber. > Enter upon the road to the Holy Sepulchre; wrest that land from the > wicked race, and subject it to yourselves ... God has conferred upon > you above all nations great glory in arms. Accordingly undertake this > journey for the remission of your sins, with the assurance of the > imperishable glory of the Kingdom of Heaven." > > > An increasing number of people don't seem to need the old myths. I am > one > > and apparently you are another. But some people will go with tradition > > rather than thinking and reasoning because of the strong social support > > they get from it (and the possible inadequacy of their thinking and > > reasoning processes). They also get a free 'get out of Hell' card, so > > death is not a problem now. If people in this group had one they'd quit > > thinking about getting iced. > > > > Many have said that you cannot understand people until you understand > their > > myths. > > More fundamental than the particular local set of myths is why people > have myths at all. > > > I tend to agree. Worth study if not worth believing. Most of > > Mississippi's trouble come from most of us being Baptist, and I am dead > > serious. > > "Mississippi came in last in our ranking of state economies. " > http://www.businessinsider.com/state-economy-ranking-july-2015-2015-7 > > I think this is a bigger factor, but it's hard to tell how much > culture, including religion, influences income per capita. It is more > obvious how low and falling income per capita influences people's view > the future being bright or bleak. The Arab Islamic culture, with high > population growth and low to negative economic growth is a recipe for > war and other violent behavior because people sense bleak futures and > that turns up the spread and intensity of xenophobic memes. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 17:27:24 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:27:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] What is religion? What is god was The Meaning of the Universe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Keith Henson wrote: > ?> ? > More fundamental than the particular local set of myths is why people > ? ? > have myths at all. ?Because their mommy and daddy told them those myths were real. Genes that make children believe what adults tell them will do better than genes that tell them to ignore adults because adults do have a lot of wisdom to impart on their children. And most adults don't have hallucinations but some do and they will tell their children about them and they will believe what they hear, and as adults they will go on to tell their children about it and they will believe it too. And so it goes. Scientology may be a bit different as many became converts as adults, but I don't think Scientology will ever become a major religion that way because there aren't ?a ? sufficient number adults that retain enough juvenile characteristics to seek a father figure. If a religion wants to get big it has to snag people when their young, very young, preferably learning to talk young ? and before their critical thinking skills are developed. ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Thu Jun 16 20:40:46 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:40:46 +0100 Subject: [ExI] outrage In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <47d05e57-a7cc-fc40-382c-7978b46ddf67@aleph.se> On 2016-06-16 15:04, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > What do you think? Are people more touchy now? The media landscape makes it easier to hear about and spread outrage, which means that you can reach larger groups with your outrage and have a higher likelihood of triggering the easily outraged. But there is also an aspect of lacking analysis. In the past I think people trusted authorities and theories more, making them argue based on some framework. Today many people do not have frameworks, and have been told it is OK not to have a framework, so they just express the outrage they feel without trying to justify it. While it is somewhat honest (a lot of angry socialists or existentialists were arguing what they did because they were angry rather than because of a conclusion from Marx or Sartre) it makes it hard to have a dialog. -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From spike66 at att.net Thu Jun 16 20:32:14 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:32:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> <00b401d1c7de$b0506160$10f12420$@att.net> Message-ID: <01a401d1c80e$2b7f37b0$827da710$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 9:42 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Circumcision >>? (why oh why are not American teens exploring the limits of that particular absurdity? (I am so disappointed in them.)) spike >?Huh? Please explain bill w I remember fondly when teenagers were rebellious outspoken cocksure types rather than this generation of shrinking violets seeking safe spaces where they wouldn?t risk getting their little feelings hurt. When I saw the White House directive that all public spaces be non-gender-exclusive, I fully expected a group of ballsy teen girls to band together and walk into the boys locker room while showers were taking place, claiming they felt like men inside, and identified as men. Then they could have a few of the guys in on it and have them comment to the reporters that they saw no harm in welcoming them into the locker room, that he and the other guys are not offended by the sight of another man?s vagina. The girls could get enough of them that there isn?t a real risk of things going terribly wrong. There would be no laws broken. There would be no justification for discipline of the ladies. It would be a rather hilarious gag, and would point out the depths of absurdity we can reach by pretending men and women are the same. I would be interested in finding out how many teen boys would be OK showering when there are women milling about in the locker room, and how many would go whining to the principal to have them leave. Guys, would you be OK with it? Would you have been OK with it in high school? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Jun 16 20:34:29 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 13:34:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Paranormal Computer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01a901d1c80e$7c2127a0$746376e0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] A Paranormal Computer On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:33 AM, John Clark > wrote: This program asks you to randomly hit your "f" or "d" key. For me it consistently predicted what key I would hit next well over 50% of the time, usually around 70%. http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nick/aaronson-oracle/ John K Clark ?52% for me bill w? 72%. Cool game! I noticed it got better over time. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 21:21:30 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:21:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: <01a401d1c80e$2b7f37b0$827da710$@att.net> References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> <00b401d1c7de$b0506160$10f12420$@att.net> <01a401d1c80e$2b7f37b0$827da710$@att.net> Message-ID: I would be interested in finding out how many teen boys would be OK showering when there are women milling about in the locker room, and how many would go whining to the principal to have them leave. Guys, would you be OK with it? Would you have been OK with it in high school? spike *OK, I get it and agree. I could just see some frat boys dressing up or having pledges dress up and create some comedic scenes.* *Now as to the above: I have asked quite a few classes this question: if we all stripped down to skin right now, who would be more embarrassed, men or women? The consensus has always been men. Men know that there are some things about their equipment that they don't want women to know. In fact I even saw this in Dear Abby once: a young man, maybe a teen, wrote to her and said that he was embarrassed about size and wished that he could have a semi-erection all the time. She said the obvious. * *bill w* On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:32 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Thursday, June 16, 2016 9:42 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] Circumcision > > > > >>? (why oh why are not American teens exploring the limits of that > particular absurdity? (I am so > disappointed in them.)) spike > > > > >?Huh? Please explain bill w > > > > > > I remember fondly when teenagers were rebellious outspoken cocksure types > rather than this generation of shrinking violets seeking safe spaces where > they wouldn?t risk getting their little feelings hurt. > > > > When I saw the White House directive that all public spaces be > non-gender-exclusive, I fully expected a group of ballsy teen girls to band > together and walk into the boys locker room while showers were taking > place, claiming they felt like men inside, and identified as men. Then > they could have a few of the guys in on it and have them comment to the > reporters that they saw no harm in welcoming them into the locker room, > that he and the other guys are not offended by the sight of another man?s > vagina. > > > > The girls could get enough of them that there isn?t a real risk of things > going terribly wrong. There would be no laws broken. There would be no > justification for discipline of the ladies. It would be a rather hilarious > gag, and would point out the depths of absurdity we can reach by pretending > men and women are the same. I would be interested in finding out how many > teen boys would be OK showering when there are women milling about in the > locker room, and how many would go whining to the principal to have them > leave. Guys, would you be OK with it? Would you have been OK with it in > high school? > > > > spike > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 21:31:18 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:31:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] What is religion? What is god was The Meaning of the Universe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: And most adults don't have hallucinations but some do and they will tell their children about them and they will believe what they hear, and as adults they will go on to tell their children about it and they will believe it too. And so it goes. John Now there is a fascinating but unanswerable question: just what was the role of hallucinations in religions? I do know of certain African tribes where the shaman's qualifications must include hallucinations. The assumption is that he is in touch with the spirit world and perhaps can communicate with it and pray for sick people or crops or whatever. How may paranoid schizos have been raised to the top in society as a result of their disease? In this case 'disease' is not the operable word. "Gift" would be. Back to God. He is just not a very interesting character. But Jesus' older brother is: Satan. Satan appears everywhere but my favorite is Loki, the mischievous Scandanavian god and trickster - and Coyote in the Navajo religion. bill w On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 12:27 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Keith Henson > wrote: > >> > ?> ? >> More fundamental than the particular local set of myths is why people >> ? ? >> have myths at all. > > > ?Because their mommy and daddy told them those myths were real. Genes > that make children believe what adults tell them will do better than genes > that tell them to ignore adults because adults do have a lot of wisdom to > impart on their children. And most adults don't have hallucinations but > some do and they will tell their children about them and they will believe > what they hear, and as adults they will go on to tell their children about > it and they will believe it too. And so it goes. > > Scientology may be a bit different as many became converts as adults, but > I don't think Scientology will ever become a major religion that way > because there aren't > ?a ? > sufficient number adults that retain enough juvenile characteristics to > seek a father figure. If a religion wants to get big it has to snag people > when their young, very young, preferably learning to talk young > ? and before their critical thinking skills are developed. ? > > > John K Clark > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 16 21:37:23 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 16:37:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] outrage In-Reply-To: <47d05e57-a7cc-fc40-382c-7978b46ddf67@aleph.se> References: <47d05e57-a7cc-fc40-382c-7978b46ddf67@aleph.se> Message-ID: But there is also an aspect of lacking analysis. In the past I think people trusted authorities and theories more, making them argue based on some framework. Today many people do not have frameworks, and have been told it is OK not to have a framework, so they just express the outrage they feel without trying to justify it. While it is somewhat honest (a lot of angry socialists or existentialists were arguing what they did because they were angry rather than because of a conclusion from Marx or Sartre) it makes it hard to have a dialog. anders Outrage appears to be very seductive to people with histrionic personality disorder (y'all are getting a course in psych, bit by bit). Their threshold for being outraged is low and so may be their real wish for a happy ending. I agree with anders about trusting authorities. At one time I think that many people would agree with a man who said 'They can't put it on TV if it isn't true.' If anyone said that nowadays they'd get strange looks. The media are unashamedly biased. Only one acceptable framework around here: religion. bill w On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 3:40 PM, Anders wrote: > On 2016-06-16 15:04, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > >> What do you think? Are people more touchy now? >> > > The media landscape makes it easier to hear about and spread outrage, > which means that you can reach larger groups with your outrage and have a > higher likelihood of triggering the easily outraged. > > But there is also an aspect of lacking analysis. In the past I think > people trusted authorities and theories more, making them argue based on > some framework. Today many people do not have frameworks, and have been > told it is OK not to have a framework, so they just express the outrage > they feel without trying to justify it. While it is somewhat honest (a lot > of angry socialists or existentialists were arguing what they did because > they were angry rather than because of a conclusion from Marx or Sartre) it > makes it hard to have a dialog. > > -- > Dr Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Oxford University > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 00:54:33 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:54:33 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What is religion? What is god was The Meaning of the Universe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:31 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Now there is a fascinating but unanswerable question: just what was > the role of hallucinations in religions? Why do you believe that question unanswerable? > I do know of certain African tribes > where the shaman's qualifications must include hallucinations. The > assumption is that he is in touch with the spirit world and perhaps can > communicate with it and pray for sick people or crops or whatever. Seems you're making an attempt to answer it, no? :) > How may paranoid schizos have been raised to the top in society as > a result of their disease? In this case 'disease' is not the operable > word. "Gift" would be. My guess would be very few if any. I imagine, though, they might be used as dupes by those at the top. > Back to God. He is just not a very interesting character. But Jesus' > older brother is: Satan. Satan appears everywhere but my favorite > is Loki, the mischievous Scandanavian god and trickster - and Coyote > in the Navajo religion. This reminds me of Justin Barrett's book _Why Would Anyone Believe in God?_. I believe Barrett, who is making a case from cognitive science on why belief in god(s) and spirits are so prevalent, is trying to make religious belief okay, but we can still learn a lot from him. For instance, that certain types of fictional entities are more appealing than others -- a talking tree vs. a merely invisible one. Why? They have agency and can communicate with us. (In the invisible tree example, it can't really do much save get in the way. That's actually Barrett's example too.:) Regards, Dan Sample my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 00:59:07 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 17:59:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] outrage In-Reply-To: <47d05e57-a7cc-fc40-382c-7978b46ddf67@aleph.se> References: <47d05e57-a7cc-fc40-382c-7978b46ddf67@aleph.se> Message-ID: Is there more outrage today? How can figure out if there is more and how much more? I'm bringing this up not to be snarky, but because it seems like many questions start from a presumption that there's more (or less) X today without really showing any good evidence that this is so. For instance, talking with people at a meeting recently they were surprised when I said that two big trends that are really great (IMO) is the overall global decline in poverty and violence. They simply didn't think either was true and thought things were getting worse on all fronts -- save for technology. (They were both technological optimists, but otherwise seemed pessimistic, which puzzled me.) Regards, Dan Sample my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 03:31:46 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:31:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] outrage In-Reply-To: References: <47d05e57-a7cc-fc40-382c-7978b46ddf67@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > Is there more outrage today? How can figure out if there is more and how > much more? > Are there ways to measure and quantize outrage? What are the units of measurement of outrage? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 03:53:14 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 20:53:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] outrage In-Reply-To: References: <47d05e57-a7cc-fc40-382c-7978b46ddf67@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Jun 16, 2016, at 8:31 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> Is there more outrage today? How can figure out if there is more and how much more? > > Are there ways to measure and quantize outrage? What are the units of measurement of outrage? I don't know, but if no one knows then how can we seriously talk about outrage being on the rise now? Regards, Dan Sample my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 04:18:59 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 21:18:59 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What is religion? What is god was The Meaning of Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 8:53 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Keith Henson > wrote: > >> More fundamental than the particular local set of myths is why people >> have myths at all. > > ?Because their mommy and daddy told them those myths were real. Genes that > make children believe what adults tell them will do better than genes that > tell them to ignore adults because adults do have a lot of wisdom to impart > on their children. This kind of harmless meme spread down the generations has been seen in many animals including crows. > And most adults don't have hallucinations but some do > and they will tell their children about them and they will believe what > they hear, and as adults they will go on to tell their children about it > and they will believe it too. And so it goes. > > Scientology may be a bit different as many became converts as adults, but I > don't think Scientology will ever become a major religion that way because > there aren't a > sufficient number adults that retain enough juvenile characteristics to > seek a father figure. If a religion wants to get big it has to snag people > when their young, very young, preferably learning to talk young > and before their critical thinking skills are developed. That may be true among some old line religions. But I know of several cases where the children called bullshit on the parents at young ages. My take on how scientology works is in a 14 year old paper here: http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html Sex, Drugs, and Cults. An evolutionary psychology perspective on why and how cult memes get a drug-like hold on people, and what might be done to mitigate the effects As for this cult, it's down by around 90% from when they tangled with the internet back in 1995. My contribution was a lot less than the South Park, trapped in the Closet episode, but I think I helped bring them down. Back in 1995 the media was terrified of them. Now . . . http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a44458/ruthless-scientology-excerpt/ From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 17 05:00:13 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:00:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] outrage In-Reply-To: References: <47d05e57-a7cc-fc40-382c-7978b46ddf67@aleph.se> Message-ID: <004801d1c855$22d959a0$688c0ce0$@att.net> On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes >?Are there ways to measure and quantize outrage? What are the units of measurement of outrage? Ergs? s -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 05:26:18 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:26:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Paranormal Computer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:33 AM, John Clark wrote: > This program asks you to randomly hit your "f" or "d" key. For me it > consistently predicted what key I would hit next well over 50% of the time, > usually around 70%. > > http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nick/aaronson-oracle/ > I was able to get it down to 38% by using certain tricks about how programs like this think, which probably qualifies my input as non-random. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 17 05:34:32 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:34:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Paranormal Computer In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006d01d1c859$edd3a490$c97aedb0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 10:26 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] A Paranormal Computer On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 9:33 AM, John Clark > wrote: This program asks you to randomly hit your "f" or "d" key. For me it consistently predicted what key I would hit next well over 50% of the time, usually around 70%. http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nick/aaronson-oracle/ >?I was able to get it down to 38% by using certain tricks about how programs like this think, which probably qualifies my input as non-random. Hey cool, we can make a contest. One team creates prediction software, the other team tries to fool it. Better: have a group of coders. Each writes prediction software and has each of the others play it. Then the winner is the one whose software predicts best. Regarding Adrian?s 38% score, if you wrote code which predicted randomly, the software should score around 50% regardless of who is playing. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 05:59:46 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 16 Jun 2016 22:59:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Paranormal Computer In-Reply-To: <006d01d1c859$edd3a490$c97aedb0$@att.net> References: <006d01d1c859$edd3a490$c97aedb0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:34 PM, spike wrote: > Regarding Adrian?s 38% score, if you wrote code which predicted randomly, > the software should score around 50% regardless of who is playing. > My point is, against most people it scores better than 50%, but that comes with vulnerabilities that can be deliberately exploited. Relatedly, http://charleytimeless.co.vu/post/139562348812/wirehead-wannabe-mugasofer-lizardywizard-but . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Fri Jun 17 07:52:08 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:52:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] outrage In-Reply-To: References: <47d05e57-a7cc-fc40-382c-7978b46ddf67@aleph.se> Message-ID: On 2016-06-17 04:53, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Jun 16, 2016, at 8:31 PM, Adrian Tymes > wrote: >> Are there ways to measure and quantize outrage? What are the units >> of measurement of outrage? > > I don't know, but if no one knows then how can we seriously talk about > outrage being on the rise now? Personal experience is fallible, but it is still data. Another source of data is observable actions: current student protests against too free expression on campus, did they occur in the 80s or 90s? How many riots were triggered in different decades by foreign news? How many lawsuits over emotional distress? I think that can be used to measure outrage. We may also run sentiment analysis on newspaper editorials and letters to the editor. -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Fri Jun 17 08:06:49 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:06:49 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> Message-ID: <9df0c560-ed3e-de81-1306-ee4e9f77fa19@aleph.se> On 2016-06-15 01:33, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > anders, as a consequentialist, I think you must argue that pain never > remembered and never causing any future harm is not per se wrong. In > fact, pain now can mean learning to avoid dangerous things and so is a > good thing. Note that "remembering" can be several things. I can have an episodic memory of being in great pain, I can have a semantic memory that I was in pain, or I could have an emotional trigger that causes conditioned change in behavior/habit due to the pain. The last one can make me avoid dangerous things even when I lack the first two. Pain with no effects whatsoever only has the instantaneous disvalue, which might still be a bad thing. Imagine a server farm running emulated minds in agony in a loop. The world would be better if it is stopped, even if the external output (heat and noise) was the same. > Now this may be more debatable: should a person be subjected to > capricious pain and humiliation just because it has always been done > that way? I am thinking of fraternity initiations. I experienced it > directly. When the national organization of lambda chi came down with > instructions to eliminate hazing, some ot the brothers objected > strongly. They thought that if the new group did not go through what > they went through that they were not fully brothers in the frat. I > have seen informal initiations and they were at times vicious. Cognitive dissonance, I suppose. By adding a threshold and a cost to membership people upvalue it, plus presumably they feel a link to previous generations. Sometimes that can be useful for making a desirable institution stable. But the value of that stability better far outweigh the disvalue of pain and humiliation. -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Fri Jun 17 07:56:18 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:56:18 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> Message-ID: <8a60148f-1415-163d-7248-8026861dae42@aleph.se> On 2016-06-16 11:27, BillK wrote: > I have the feeling that all this philosophising about pain and > suffering is all very well and good. > But it will get thrown out as soon as raging toothache, bad migraine > or gallstone blockage pain arrives. > > When you are writhing in pain, screaming for codeine, philosophy > somehow doesn't seem that important. ;) As the Bard wrote, "There was never yet philosopher that could endure the toothache patiently". But actually, when I did have a toothache I tried the pain management techniques. Generally, pain is very distracting, but both associative and dissociative methods do work. However, they require mental processing cycles, so painkillers are very useful if you have other things to do. -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 14:09:36 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:09:36 -0500 Subject: [ExI] What is religion? What is god was The Meaning of the Universe In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:31 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Now there is a fascinating but unanswerable question: just what was > the role of hallucinations in religions? Why do you believe that question unanswerable? dan I was thinking of the origins of religion, which occurred so far in the past. After religions got started, then anything could be roped in to them. bill w On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 7:54 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:31 PM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > > Now there is a fascinating but unanswerable question: just what was > > the role of hallucinations in religions? > > Why do you believe that question unanswerable? > > > I do know of certain African tribes > > where the shaman's qualifications must include hallucinations. The > > assumption is that he is in touch with the spirit world and perhaps can > > communicate with it and pray for sick people or crops or whatever. > > Seems you're making an attempt to answer it, no? :) > > > How may paranoid schizos have been raised to the top in society as > > a result of their disease? In this case 'disease' is not the operable > > word. "Gift" would be. > > My guess would be very few if any. I imagine, though, they might be used > as dupes by those at the top. > > > Back to God. He is just not a very interesting character. But Jesus' > > older brother is: Satan. Satan appears everywhere but my favorite > > is Loki, the mischievous Scandanavian god and trickster - and Coyote > > in the Navajo religion. > > This reminds me of Justin Barrett's book _Why Would Anyone Believe in > God?_. I believe Barrett, who is making a case from cognitive science on > why belief in god(s) and spirits are so prevalent, is trying to make > religious belief okay, but we can still learn a lot from him. For instance, > that certain types of fictional entities are more appealing than others -- > a talking tree vs. a merely invisible one. Why? They have agency and can > communicate with us. (In the invisible tree example, it can't really do > much save get in the way. That's actually Barrett's example too.:) > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: > http://mybook.to/Gurlitt > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 14:40:28 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:40:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] outrage In-Reply-To: References: <47d05e57-a7cc-fc40-382c-7978b46ddf67@aleph.se> Message-ID: two big trends that are really great (IMO) is the overall global decline in poverty and violence. They simply didn't think either was true and thought things were getting worse on all fronts -- save for technology. (They were both technological optimists, but otherwise seemed pessimistic, which puzzled me.) dan I hate to call it a phobia but I lack another term. A form of superstition as well. I refer to people's fear of predicting anything good. If someone does, someone else will react and knock on wood or some other 'preventative'. Then too there is the media effect: mostly bad news gets reported, as we all know. This skews perceptions of overall good versus bad. Good news today consists of kitten videos and the like. Very solid effect: good things are not nearly so good as bad things are bad. Fear trumps everything (intended). But maybe not. Addicted gamblers seem to be opposite in this - less fear of losing than thrill of winning.' bill w On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 2:52 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 2016-06-17 04:53, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > > On Jun 16, 2016, at 8:31 PM, Adrian Tymes < > atymes at gmail.com> wrote: > > Are there ways to measure and quantize outrage? What are the units of > measurement of outrage? > > > I don't know, but if no one knows then how can we seriously talk about > outrage being on the rise now? > > > Personal experience is fallible, but it is still data. Another source of > data is observable actions: current student protests against too free > expression on campus, did they occur in the 80s or 90s? How many riots were > triggered in different decades by foreign news? How many lawsuits over > emotional distress? > > I think that can be used to measure outrage. We may also run sentiment > analysis on newspaper editorials and letters to the editor. > > > -- > Dr Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Oxford University > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 17 14:40:43 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 07:40:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Paranormal Computer In-Reply-To: References: <006d01d1c859$edd3a490$c97aedb0$@att.net> Message-ID: <008d01d1c8a6$3ae2bf40$b0a83dc0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2016 11:00 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] A Paranormal Computer On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 10:34 PM, spike > wrote: Regarding Adrian?s 38% score, if you wrote code which predicted randomly, the software should score around 50% regardless of who is playing. >?My point is, against most people it scores better than 50%, but that comes with vulnerabilities that can be deliberately exploited. >?Relatedly, http://charleytimeless.co.vu/post/139562348812/wirehead-wannabe-mugasofer-lizardywizard-but . Ja, and it occurred to me we could write software which could be either player, the guy who is predicting or the guy who is trying to fool the prediction guy. We could play a few rounds where humans played both positions and perhaps one where algorithms played both. This is so cool! Cool enough that someone should have already thought of the idea about a proton?s life ago. There should be a name for that game, something kids played back in the long time agos. I can never think of anything new; all is vanity and vexation of spirit. Back in the 1950s, when computers were starting up everywhere, the philosophical types were thinking of all these ideas they could do with them. I can imagine this was one of them. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 14:55:27 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 09:55:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision In-Reply-To: <8a60148f-1415-163d-7248-8026861dae42@aleph.se> References: <00c401d1c5b4$da174bc0$8e45e340$@att.net> <8a60148f-1415-163d-7248-8026861dae42@aleph.se> Message-ID: Cialis doesn?t exactly in itself cause arousal; rather it simulates it. When using Cialis I can get an erection very easily, a bit like I did when the hormone levels were an order of magnitude higher. I wear loose baggy pants so it doesn?t show when that happens. My theory is that Cialis use makes me a kinder, friendlier person, more approachable, less sanctimonious perhaps, more human. I like me better on Cialis. Your thoughts please sir? spike Are you on the daily Cialis? Would seem so. I only began to use C after prostatectomy and it was the 20 mg dose. It has done nothing for me unless I was in a sexual situation. It caused no arousal at all. Whether that's the result of age, hormone level, or the surgery is problematic. My understanding is that it does not stimulate arousal but enable it when a situation calls for it. Wait - you said 'simulate'. >???? What is a simulated erection? Or do you mean cognitive wish for sex? I am off the charts low in testosterone but they won't give me any because of the prostate cancer, which eats it as prime rib. Still, one pill will last me three nights. I won't pretend that it's the same as before the surgery and I can't last as long (or maybe go ahead with orgasm because I am afraid of losing it). I have always been low in testosterone, which hasn't stopped me from a normal sex life - above average if you count times per week. As for the emotional effects you refer to I do not have them and have never heard of them. Placebo effect is a possibility, of course. Have you Googled this? While we are on this subject, I think it's just rotten that Medicare doesn't pay for Cialis for people like me: prostate surgery. They are pretending that good sex is not part of a healthy life. Of course it would ruin their budget. bill w On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 2:56 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 2016-06-16 11:27, BillK wrote: > >> I have the feeling that all this philosophising about pain and >> suffering is all very well and good. >> But it will get thrown out as soon as raging toothache, bad migraine >> or gallstone blockage pain arrives. >> >> When you are writhing in pain, screaming for codeine, philosophy >> somehow doesn't seem that important. ;) >> > > As the Bard wrote, "There was never yet philosopher that could endure the > toothache patiently". > > But actually, when I did have a toothache I tried the pain management > techniques. Generally, pain is very distracting, but both associative and > dissociative methods do work. However, they require mental processing > cycles, so painkillers are very useful if you have other things to do. > > > -- > Dr Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Oxford University > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 17 14:57:12 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 07:57:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] outrage In-Reply-To: References: <47d05e57-a7cc-fc40-382c-7978b46ddf67@aleph.se> Message-ID: <00a901d1c8a8$8851faf0$98f5f0d0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg >.current student protests against too free expression on campus, did they occur in the 80s or 90s? . Dr Anders Sandberg -- I definitely didn't see that one coming. That college campuses would be leading the charge to restrict free speech? That college students wouldn't be able to tell the difference between men and women? That campuses would want "safe zones"? Had Orwell put that in the sequel to Nineteen Eighty Four, I would have disregarded it as a joke. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 15:11:38 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:11:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision Message-ID: Note that "remembering" can be several things. I can have an episodic memory of being in great pain, I can have a semantic memory that I was in pain, or I could have an emotional trigger that causes conditioned change in behavior/habit due to the pain. The last one can make me avoid dangerous things even when I lack the first two. anders This suggests that you are referring to a CR (classically conditional (more accurate then 'conditioned') response), followed by either passive or active avoidance. If this is the case, then the person will avoid something because of the fear but not know why, lacking the semantic memory. This does happen. I suggest that far more common is remembering, though not for babies. As for babies, who knows what they pick up before they begin to really store long term memories. Lack of knowledge did not stop Freud, of course, though most reject his claims of oral and anal fixations etc. Others traced adult neurosis to birth trauma - how to prove that? Compare Caesarean with vaginal delivery kids? Probably been done. Does anyone know if the babies who are circumcised get any kind of pain relief? bill w > > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 15:14:03 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:14:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] outrage In-Reply-To: References: <47d05e57-a7cc-fc40-382c-7978b46ddf67@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Jun 17, 2016, at 7:40 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > two big trends that are really great (IMO) is the overall global decline in poverty and violence. They simply didn't think either was true and thought things were getting worse on all fronts -- save for technology. (They were both technological optimists, but otherwise seemed pessimistic, which puzzled me.) dan > > I hate to call it a phobia but I lack another term. A form of superstition as well. I refer to people's fear of predicting anything good. If someone does, someone else will react and knock on wood or some other 'preventative'. Not that the label counts for much, but it's often called "pessimism bias." I believe it's a default setting -- at least in adults. If so, then it probably has some cognitive or evolutionary basis. And if it's merely default, then it can be unlearned. > Then too there is the media effect: mostly bad news gets reported, as we all know. This skews perceptions of overall good versus bad. Good news today consists of kitten videos and the like. Very solid effect: good things are not nearly so good as bad things are bad. Fear trumps everything (intended). I think there's a recency effect -- what's seen or heard is believed to be more typical than it is -- and the visceral nature of certain reports trumps background knowledge or even makes people believe they don't need background knowledge. The important thing here would be looking at the base rate and finding out what overall trends are, which often don't have the same kind of immediate perceptual appeal... You know, showing a scene of a shooting seems more real than the long term trend of a decline in murder and violent crime. > But maybe not. Addicted gamblers seem to be opposite in this - less fear of losing than thrill of winning.' It might be that most people have a pessimism bias, but a few don't. Or maybe these cognitive biases play out differently in different areas. I read somewhere that most people are optimistic about their future but pessimistic about future of everyone else. Regards, Dan Sample my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 15:14:57 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:14:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] outrage In-Reply-To: <00a901d1c8a8$8851faf0$98f5f0d0$@att.net> References: <47d05e57-a7cc-fc40-382c-7978b46ddf67@aleph.se> <00a901d1c8a8$8851faf0$98f5f0d0$@att.net> Message-ID: I definitely didn?t see that one coming. That college campuses would be leading the charge to restrict free speech? That college students wouldn?t be able to tell the difference between men and women? That campuses would want ?safe zones?? Had Orwell put that in the sequel to Nineteen Eighty Four, I would have disregarded it as a joke. spike Does anyone know if the 'safe zones' etc. were the instigation of far left faculty, which then organized students, or were the students the instigators? i suspect the former. bill w On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 9:57 AM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *Anders Sandberg > > >?current student protests against too free expression on campus, did > they occur in the 80s or 90s? ? Dr Anders Sandberg > > -- > > > > > > I definitely didn?t see that one coming. That college campuses would be leading the charge to restrict free speech? That college students wouldn?t be able to tell the difference between men and women? That campuses would want ?safe zones?? Had Orwell put that in the sequel to Nineteen Eighty Four, I would have disregarded it as a joke. > > > > spike > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 15:27:22 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:27:22 -0500 Subject: [ExI] outrage In-Reply-To: References: <47d05e57-a7cc-fc40-382c-7978b46ddf67@aleph.se> Message-ID: I hate to call it a phobia but I lack another term. A form of superstition as well. I refer to people's fear of predicting anything good. If someone does, someone else will react and knock on wood or some other 'preventative'. Not that the label counts for much, but it's often called "pessimism bias." dan Yet another reminder that psych is still in the descriptive state. I went to Wikipedia and read about libertarianism and anarchy, and there are several varieties of them, much as what you would find if you searched for 'protestants'. Or intelligence. Some people include art or music ability and some don't. Thus when a study comes out, some will claim that it didn't study the real thing because it did not include this or exclude that,and so it all breaks down in what some would call semantics. This is a very frustrating problem in psych. It's language that is the problem. bill w On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:14 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Jun 17, 2016, at 7:40 AM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > two big trends that are really great (IMO) is the overall global decline > in poverty and violence. They simply didn't think either was true and > thought things were getting worse on all fronts -- save for technology. > (They were both technological optimists, but otherwise seemed pessimistic, > which puzzled me.) dan > > I hate to call it a phobia but I lack another term. A form of > superstition as well. I refer to people's fear of predicting anything > good. If someone does, someone else will react and knock on wood or some > other 'preventative'. > > > Not that the label counts for much, but it's often called "pessimism > bias." I believe it's a default setting -- at least in adults. If so, then > it probably has some cognitive or evolutionary basis. And if it's merely > default, then it can be unlearned. > > Then too there is the media effect: mostly bad news gets reported, as we > all know. This skews perceptions of overall good versus bad. Good news > today consists of kitten videos and the like. Very solid effect: good > things are not nearly so good as bad things are bad. Fear trumps > everything (intended). > > > I think there's a recency effect -- what's seen or heard is believed to be > more typical than it is -- and the visceral nature of certain reports > trumps background knowledge or even makes people believe they don't need > background knowledge. The important thing here would be looking at the base > rate and finding out what overall trends are, which often don't have the > same kind of immediate perceptual appeal... You know, showing a scene of a > shooting seems more real than the long term trend of a decline in murder > and violent crime. > > But maybe not. Addicted gamblers seem to be opposite in this - less fear > of losing than thrill of winning.' > > > It might be that most people have a pessimism bias, but a few don't. Or > maybe these cognitive biases play out differently in different areas. I > read somewhere that most people are optimistic about their future but > pessimistic about future of everyone else. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: > http://mybook.to/Gurlitt > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 15:29:52 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 10:29:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] What is religion? What is god was The Meaning of In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Scientology keith This has always amazed me. A science fiction writer tells his peers that he is going to start a religion and he does!! And people believe it anyway. I don't know if anyone has studied credulousness but I am going to find out. bill w On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 8:53 PM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Keith Henson > > wrote: > > > >> More fundamental than the particular local set of myths is why people > >> have myths at all. > > > > ?Because their mommy and daddy told them those myths were real. Genes > that > > make children believe what adults tell them will do better than genes > that > > tell them to ignore adults because adults do have a lot of wisdom to > impart > > on their children. > > This kind of harmless meme spread down the generations has been seen > in many animals including crows. > > > And most adults don't have hallucinations but some do > > and they will tell their children about them and they will believe what > > they hear, and as adults they will go on to tell their children about it > > and they will believe it too. And so it goes. > > > > Scientology may be a bit different as many became converts as adults, > but I > > don't think Scientology will ever become a major religion that way > because > > there aren't a > > sufficient number adults that retain enough juvenile characteristics to > > seek a father figure. If a religion wants to get big it has to snag > people > > when their young, very young, preferably learning to talk young > > and before their critical thinking skills are developed. > > That may be true among some old line religions. But I know of several > cases where the children called bullshit on the parents at young ages. > My take on how scientology works is in a 14 year old paper here: > http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html > > Sex, Drugs, and Cults. An evolutionary psychology perspective on why > and how cult memes get a drug-like hold on people, and what might be > done to mitigate the effects > > As for this cult, it's down by around 90% from when they tangled with > the internet back in 1995. My contribution was a lot less than the > South Park, trapped in the Closet episode, but I think I helped bring > them down. Back in 1995 the media was terrified of them. Now . . . > > http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a44458/ruthless-scientology-excerpt/ > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 17 15:41:37 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 08:41:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] outrage In-Reply-To: References: <47d05e57-a7cc-fc40-382c-7978b46ddf67@aleph.se> Message-ID: <016501d1c8ae$bc825da0$358718e0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace ? Then too there is the media effect: mostly bad news gets reported, as we all know. ? bill w Here?s one for you: consider how many murders happen per year. If you like to think of your own country, that is OK too. As a thought experiment, estimate the number of murders per year in your own country. Americans, try that before you read on please, but don?t Google, estimate first. Your estimate and reasoning is educational in itself. . . . . OK being a Yank, I kinda have a vague idea of our murder rate. I live in a town of about 60k. It is a relatively peaceful place I think, so if I estimate the murder rate here at about one a year, I would be OK with doubling that for a national average, so an American average would be about 2 per 60k? Sound about right? So there are about 330M yanks (we include Mexicans for this thought experiment) so that comes out to around 10k murders per year or a little higher, ja? That feels way high to me, about 30 to 35 proles slain per day? Are there really that many? Sheesh. OK then, now we Google. Google says about 16k homicides per year. Oy vey, I underestimated! All right then, about 50 proles are slain per day. Last Sunday in Orlando, 50 were slain in one day, so the murder rate was double on that day, and it durn sure did make the news, and still is. So? we know that once in a while on a really bad day, the murder rate is double the normal rate. How often is the murder rate half the background? Would that make the news? What day in 2010s so far had the fewest slayings? And do we count drunk driving accidents as murders? If we do, that would perhaps throw out what might ordinarily be low murder rate days, such as Christmas or Thanksgiving days, both of which might have higher drunk driving deaths. How low would the murder rate need to be for it to become a headline? What if we decided to try for record low murder rates on a particular day? Advertise it: National No-Homicide Day. Go for a record: don?t slay that prole until after midnight, etc. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 16:53:21 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:53:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] What is religion? What is god was The Meaning of In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: https://psysci.com/2012/11/10/credulous-personality-disorder/ OK, so I searched for it and here it is: if we can't explain it, we call it a personality disorder. I am sure you are familiar with the nominal fallacy. This is a category of the diagnoses that is unfamiliar to most people or people who have forgotten their psych 101. Not neurotic, not psychotic, just crippled in some way. Nixon was said to have a paranoid personality disorder. Wikipedia says: gullibility is more of a naivete' and maybe lack of intelligence, whereas credulousness is a lack of using firm facts to support your belief. You're welcome. bill w On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 10:29 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Scientology keith > > This has always amazed me. A science fiction writer tells his peers that > he is going to start a religion and he does!! And people believe it > anyway. I don't know if anyone has studied credulousness but I am going to > find out. > > bill w > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:18 PM, Keith Henson > wrote: > >> On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 8:53 PM, John Clark >> wrote: >> >> > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 11:24 AM, Keith Henson >> > wrote: >> > >> >> More fundamental than the particular local set of myths is why people >> >> have myths at all. >> > >> > ?Because their mommy and daddy told them those myths were real. Genes >> that >> > make children believe what adults tell them will do better than genes >> that >> > tell them to ignore adults because adults do have a lot of wisdom to >> impart >> > on their children. >> >> This kind of harmless meme spread down the generations has been seen >> in many animals including crows. >> >> > And most adults don't have hallucinations but some do >> > and they will tell their children about them and they will believe what >> > they hear, and as adults they will go on to tell their children about it >> > and they will believe it too. And so it goes. >> > >> > Scientology may be a bit different as many became converts as adults, >> but I >> > don't think Scientology will ever become a major religion that way >> because >> > there aren't a >> > sufficient number adults that retain enough juvenile characteristics to >> > seek a father figure. If a religion wants to get big it has to snag >> people >> > when their young, very young, preferably learning to talk young >> > and before their critical thinking skills are developed. >> >> That may be true among some old line religions. But I know of several >> cases where the children called bullshit on the parents at young ages. >> My take on how scientology works is in a 14 year old paper here: >> http://human-nature.com/nibbs/02/cults.html >> >> Sex, Drugs, and Cults. An evolutionary psychology perspective on why >> and how cult memes get a drug-like hold on people, and what might be >> done to mitigate the effects >> >> As for this cult, it's down by around 90% from when they tangled with >> the internet back in 1995. My contribution was a lot less than the >> South Park, trapped in the Closet episode, but I think I helped bring >> them down. Back in 1995 the media was terrified of them. Now . . . >> >> http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/a44458/ruthless-scientology-excerpt/ >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 18:55:55 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 11:55:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What is religion? What is god was The Meaning Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:10 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:31 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: >>> Now there is a fascinating but unanswerable question: just what was >>> the role of hallucinations in religions? > >> Why do you believe that question unanswerable? dan > > I was thinking of the origins of religion, which occurred so far in the > past. After religions got started, then anything could be roped in to them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_G._White#Head_injury At one point I located two other religions that were influenced by head injury religious hallucinations, but I am not sure now which they were. The question remains as to why this particular class of memes spreads from person to person or down the generations. I make a case that it is ultimately due to the practice of the winners of a conflict taking the young women of the defeated as wives and additional wives. Keith From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 19:00:48 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:00:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] outrage In-Reply-To: References: <47d05e57-a7cc-fc40-382c-7978b46ddf67@aleph.se> <00a901d1c8a8$8851faf0$98f5f0d0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:14 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I definitely didn?t see that one coming. That college campuses > would be leading the charge to restrict free speech? That college > students wouldn?t be able to tell the difference between men and > women? That campuses would want ?safe zones?? Had Orwell > put that in the sequel to Nineteen Eighty Four, I would have > disregarded it as a joke. > > spike > > > Does anyone know if the 'safe zones' etc. were the instigation of far > left faculty, which then organized students, or were the students the > instigators? i suspect the former. I believe it started outside of academia all together -- or, at least, off campus. However, we look further back, we see the Free Speech Movement (in the US) of the 01960s. That was to open up campuses to more free expression. Wouldn't that imply that before the FSM campuses were less open to free expression? And, if so, what we're seeing now is free expression being re-curtailed. In other words, the history here is not one of since the beginning of time universities were "free expression zones" and only in the last decade or two became the domain of speech codes and the like. (This isn't meant to be a comprehensive history of this. I'm just connecting dots here. I'm missing many more dots. This is just my first pass at explanation, so YMMV.:) This doesn't excuse anything today. The rationale and agents behind the change are certainly different, for instance. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 19:44:17 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 12:44:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Paranormal Computer In-Reply-To: References: <006d01d1c859$edd3a490$c97aedb0$@att.net> <008d01d1c8a6$3ae2bf40$b0a83dc0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Jun 17, 2016 7:55 AM, "spike" wrote: > This is so cool! Cool enough that someone should have already thought of the idea about a proton?s life ago. The general concept has been more popular in "program a virtual drone" format, where the programs directly fight one another. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 20:08:47 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:08:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] outrage In-Reply-To: References: <47d05e57-a7cc-fc40-382c-7978b46ddf67@aleph.se> <00a901d1c8a8$8851faf0$98f5f0d0$@att.net> Message-ID: This doesn't excuse anything today. The rationale and agents behind the change are certainly different, for instance. Regards, Dan Look what we are reduced to: We had better not even spell out the N word and of course cannot say it. Nor can intimidated media. We can't say colored people but can say people of color (I have heard that 'black' is now unacceptable). Now I will suggest that this kind of splitting hairs is taking on the aura of religion. Saying the wrong thing is blasphemy, so no kind of secular right to free speech will trump it. It also suggests to me a kind of 'holier than thou' attitude on the part of the speech suppressors. So what we have is fanaticism. This can result from an overreaction or overcompensation to doubt. Are they in fact free of racism themselves? Hardly - so they are in denial. They are demanding that others be pure in a way that they are not, unconsciously. Just accuse one of racism and see if they flame you. If they calmly say that probably most people have some racism, then this analysis is wrong, at least for that person. My bet is that they will get angry. Righteous indignation is the cliche' term for the emotion. (anal retentive is the cliche' term for the person). Now this kind of interpretation can go on for pages, but I think this is adequate to explain the facts. bill w On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 2:00 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:14 AM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > > I definitely didn?t see that one coming. That college campuses > > would be leading the charge to restrict free speech? That college > > students wouldn?t be able to tell the difference between men and > > women? That campuses would want ?safe zones?? Had Orwell > > put that in the sequel to Nineteen Eighty Four, I would have > > disregarded it as a joke. > > > > spike > > > > > > Does anyone know if the 'safe zones' etc. were the instigation of far > > left faculty, which then organized students, or were the students the > > instigators? i suspect the former. > > I believe it started outside of academia all together -- or, at least, off > campus. > > However, we look further back, we see the Free Speech Movement (in the US) > of the 01960s. That was to open up campuses to more free expression. > Wouldn't that imply that before the FSM campuses were less open to free > expression? And, if so, what we're seeing now is free expression being > re-curtailed. In other words, the history here is not one of since the > beginning of time universities were "free expression zones" and only in the > last decade or two became the domain of speech codes and the like. (This > isn't meant to be a comprehensive history of this. I'm just connecting dots > here. I'm missing many more dots. This is just my first pass at > explanation, so YMMV.:) > > This doesn't excuse anything today. The rationale and agents behind the > change are certainly different, for instance. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books via: > http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 17 20:00:17 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 13:00:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Paranormal Computer In-Reply-To: References: <006d01d1c859$edd3a490$c97aedb0$@att.net> <008d01d1c8a6$3ae2bf40$b0a83dc0$@att.net> Message-ID: <01f801d1c8d2$df1be650$9d53b2f0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Friday, June 17, 2016 12:44 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] A Paranormal Computer On Jun 17, 2016 7:55 AM, "spike" > wrote: >>? This is so cool! Cool enough that someone should have already thought of the idea about a proton?s life ago. >?The general concept has been more popular in "program a virtual drone" format, where the programs directly fight one another? Ja, and we played Core War back in the 1970s, which was script vs script. Oh what fun we had back in those heady days, just trying to imagine what this technology would eventually do. This keystroke prediction algorithm is an interesting problem however, for there is a strategy I thought of which would defeat those who would try to exploit the software. I think I can write a script which would insure you can?t get below about 50%. We can probably rig up a demonstration of some sort. If the guy who wrote the game were to share the code for how to count the Fs and the Js, I could write the algorithm and probably code it in JavaScript, if that is what he used. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 20:49:54 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 13:49:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] What is religion? What is god was The Meaning of Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:44 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > https://psysci.com/2012/11/10/credulous-personality-disorder/ > > OK, so I searched for it and here it is: if we can't explain it, we call > it a personality disorder. I am sure you are familiar with the nominal > fallacy. There is a range of this condition, and we know that at least one drug cause people serious problems in this respect. You have to take people off the drug or appoint guardians so they don't send their pensions to a Nigerian Prince. Strokes do this as well, so with a little effort we could figure out just where in the brain the credulous module(s) is located. Decades ago I ran into a person who had an extreme case. Near as I could tell from probing he (or she, it has been too long) believe all the conspiracy stories at the same time, cars that get 100 miles to the gallon and cars that ran on water and other nonsense without limit. To warp this back around to circumcision, the evidence for it being net helpful except in some 3rd world shit holes full of HIV is near zero. So you have to be credulous and/or callous to inflict mutilation on tiny babies. It's especially bad when people say it was done to them, so they will do it to their male children so son will look like father. Although . . . This may not be the first time something like HIV came out of Africa into the middle east where its propagation was retarded to some degree by this particular mutilation. Tribes that did it would reproduce faster and prevail in killing the tribes around them. Jumping, so I don't have to bring up another window, Google: ?Mary Baker Eddy? temporal lobe epilepsy Ellen White temporal lobe epilepsy. I remember seeing somewhere that Martin Luthar had related mental problems. Keith From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 21:29:05 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:29:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] What is religion? What is god was The Meaning of In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There is a range of this condition, and we know that at least one drug cause people serious problems in this respect. You have to take people off the drug or appoint guardians so they don't send their pensions to a Nigerian Prince. Keith OK, give - what's the drug? Credulity - has to be prefrontal lobe problem, eh? I recall that the shooter in the U of Texas tower long ago had a temporal lobe tumor. Interesting about those two women. Will neuropsychology take all the mystery out of everything? In a way, I hope so, but many will not believe the reductionism. I predict that in 1000 years you'll still have antiscience people. bill w On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 12:44 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > > https://psysci.com/2012/11/10/credulous-personality-disorder/ > > > > OK, so I searched for it and here it is: if we can't explain it, we call > > it a personality disorder. I am sure you are familiar with the nominal > > fallacy. > > There is a range of this condition, and we know that at least one drug > cause people serious problems in this respect. You have to take > people off the drug or appoint guardians so they don't send their > pensions to a Nigerian Prince. > > Strokes do this as well, so with a little effort we could figure out > just where in the brain the credulous module(s) is located. > > Decades ago I ran into a person who had an extreme case. Near as I > could tell from probing he (or she, it has been too long) believe all > the conspiracy stories at the same time, cars that get 100 miles to > the gallon and cars that ran on water and other nonsense without > limit. > > To warp this back around to circumcision, the evidence for it being > net helpful except in some 3rd world shit holes full of HIV is near > zero. So you have to be credulous and/or callous to inflict > mutilation on tiny babies. It's especially bad when people say it was > done to them, so they will do it to their male children so son will > look like father. > > Although . . . This may not be the first time something like HIV came > out of Africa into the middle east where its propagation was retarded > to some degree by this particular mutilation. Tribes that did it > would reproduce faster and prevail in killing the tribes around them. > > Jumping, so I don't have to bring up another window, Google: > > ?Mary Baker Eddy? temporal lobe epilepsy Ellen White temporal lobe > epilepsy. > > I remember seeing somewhere that Martin Luthar had related mental problems. > > Keith > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 21:38:08 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:38:08 -0500 Subject: [ExI] drug addiction Message-ID: For those still interested: http://www.brucekalexander.com/articles-speeches/demon-drug-myths/164-myth-drug-induced Reports several avenues of research on people and lab animals. Just demolishes the idea that heroin or cocaine are addictive for most people. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 21:45:29 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 16:45:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] What is religion? What is god was The Meaning In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The question remains as to why this particular class of memes spreads from person to person or down the generations. I make a case that it is ultimately due to the practice of the winners of a conflict taking the young women of the defeated as wives and additional wives. Keith Now this is very interesting. I would assume that once a tribe got a religion it would just continue by tradition. But I have trouble with the idea above: I would assume that a young woman captured would be forced to assume the religion of the new tribe. Maybe some contamination by the meme. Now when an entire people are conquered and they are forced to the new religion, I can see that. Prominent feature of Muslim history. Why a meme spreads is not my field. Well it is, sorta, as it includes persuasion and attitude change. People want myths, theories, religions that explain the world. No mystery here. bill w On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:55 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 8:10 AM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 16, 2016 at 2:31 PM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> > > wrote: > >>> Now there is a fascinating but unanswerable question: just what was > >>> the role of hallucinations in religions? > > > >> Why do you believe that question unanswerable? dan > > > > I was thinking of the origins of religion, which occurred so far in the > > past. After religions got started, then anything could be roped in to > them. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellen_G._White#Head_injury > > At one point I located two other religions that were influenced by > head injury religious hallucinations, but I am not sure now which they > were. > > The question remains as to why this particular class of memes spreads > from person to person or down the generations. I make a case that it > is ultimately due to the practice of the winners of a conflict taking > the young women of the defeated as wives and additional wives. > > Keith > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jun 17 22:25:04 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 23:25:04 +0100 Subject: [ExI] A Paranormal Computer In-Reply-To: <01f801d1c8d2$df1be650$9d53b2f0$@att.net> References: <006d01d1c859$edd3a490$c97aedb0$@att.net> <008d01d1c8a6$3ae2bf40$b0a83dc0$@att.net> <01f801d1c8d2$df1be650$9d53b2f0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 17 June 2016 at 21:00, spike wrote: > This keystroke prediction algorithm is an interesting problem however, for > there is a strategy I thought of which would defeat those who would try to > exploit the software. I think I can write a script which would insure you > can?t get below about 50%. We can probably rig up a demonstration of some > sort. If the guy who wrote the game were to share the code for how to count > the Fs and the Js, I could write the algorithm and probably code it in > JavaScript, if that is what he used. > Author explains the program here: BillK From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 17 22:40:07 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 15:40:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] remy on how to react to tragedy Message-ID: <000a01d1c8e9$3372c5f0$9a5851d0$@att.net> Whoda thunk, a country singer would come up with the most insightful of commentary? http://reason.com/reasontv/2016/06/17/remy-how-to-react-to-tragedy spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Jun 18 06:06:41 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 17 Jun 2016 23:06:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] A Paranormal Computer In-Reply-To: <01f801d1c8d2$df1be650$9d53b2f0$@att.net> References: <006d01d1c859$edd3a490$c97aedb0$@att.net> <008d01d1c8a6$3ae2bf40$b0a83dc0$@att.net> <01f801d1c8d2$df1be650$9d53b2f0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 17, 2016 at 1:00 PM, spike wrote: > If the guy who wrote the game were to share the code for how to count the > Fs and the Js, I could write the algorithm and probably code it in > JavaScript, if that is what he used. > Yeah, he did. And since it is in JavaScript, all you need to do is go to http://people.ischool.berkeley.edu/~nick/aaronson-oracle/ and View Source (probably accessible by right-clicking if you're on a laptop/desktop browser). It looks like all the code is in one page; a brief and lazy scan didn't detect any includes or API calls, though I might have missed some (because, again, lazy). It's more complex than it needs to be; there are much more streamlined ways to detect when the keyboard presses F or J. Once you have those interrupts up, you just need to have said interrupts count up, then call the prediction algorithm (which is also in JS) and pipe its output to the page. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Jun 19 14:48:39 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2016 09:48:39 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day Message-ID: Paleopsychology - "It's digging into what people thought in times when their thinking was a muddle of religion and folk-belief and rags of misunderstood classical learning, instead of being what it is today, which I suppose you'd have to call a muddle of materialism, and folk-belief and rags of misunderstood scientific learning." Roberson Davies, in The Rebel Angels bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jun 20 14:59:47 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:59:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day Message-ID: "Oh how I hate to get up in the morning, Oh how I'd love to remain in bed ..........." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71smG5d29to Irving Berlin (who could not read music and picked out tunes with one finger on the piano) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Jun 20 15:34:22 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 08:34:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00a701d1cb09$38dee150$aa9ca3f0$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: [ExI] quote of the day "Oh how I hate to get up in the morning, Oh how I'd love to remain in bed ..........." https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71smG5d29to It wouldn?t hurt us a bit to ponder once in a while how things have changed. In the generation of our grandparents (some of us) WW2 was being fought while they were draft age. So different it was before nuclear weapons changed the usual equation: more armed men on the field meant victory in battle. So foreign to our way of thinking it is now: any foreign power could show up with sufficient numbers, you are dead. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Jun 20 16:02:49 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 09:02:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day In-Reply-To: <00a701d1cb09$38dee150$aa9ca3f0$@att.net> References: <00a701d1cb09$38dee150$aa9ca3f0$@att.net> Message-ID: <40E5B1EE-9C7E-42AE-A01E-C650DF0010D9@gmail.com> On Jun 20, 2016, at 8:34 AM, spike wrote: > >? On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace > Subject: [ExI] quote of the day > > "Oh how I hate to get up in the morning, > Oh how I'd love to remain in bed ..........." > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71smG5d29to > > > It wouldn?t hurt us a bit to ponder once in a while how things have changed. In the generation of our grandparents (some of us) WW2 was being fought while they were draft age. So different it was before nuclear weapons changed the usual equation: more armed men on the field meant victory in battle. So foreign to our way of thinking it is now: any foreign power could show up with sufficient numbers, you are dead. Long before nuclear weapons, states having more armed men in the field lost battles and wars. That was never a guarantee of victory in battle or in wars. Often it lulled one side into thinking they would win or wouldn't be attacked because they had the larger numbers on their side. Regards, Dan Sample my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jun 20 16:56:37 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 11:56:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day In-Reply-To: <40E5B1EE-9C7E-42AE-A01E-C650DF0010D9@gmail.com> References: <00a701d1cb09$38dee150$aa9ca3f0$@att.net> <40E5B1EE-9C7E-42AE-A01E-C650DF0010D9@gmail.com> Message-ID: Long before nuclear weapons, states having more armed men in the field lost battles and wars. That was never a guarantee of victory in battle or in wars. Often it lulled one side into thinking they would win or wouldn't be attacked because they had the larger numbers on their side. dan Just think of all the wars fought between France and England and today there is no territory in France that belongs to England and vice versa. What an enormous waste of men, materials and money. All for royal spite. My Dad was in WWI - born 1997 bill w On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 11:02 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Jun 20, 2016, at 8:34 AM, spike wrote: > > *>?* *On Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Subject:* [ExI] quote of the day > > > > "Oh how I hate to get up in the morning, > > Oh how I'd love to remain in bed ..........." > > > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71smG5d29to > > > > > > It wouldn?t hurt us a bit to ponder once in a while how things have > changed. In the generation of our grandparents (some of us) WW2 was being > fought while they were draft age. So different it was before nuclear > weapons changed the usual equation: more armed men on the field meant > victory in battle. So foreign to our way of thinking it is now: any > foreign power could show up with sufficient numbers, you are dead. > > > Long before nuclear weapons, states having more armed men in the field > lost battles and wars. That was never a guarantee of victory in battle or > in wars. Often it lulled one side into thinking they would win or wouldn't > be attacked because they had the larger numbers on their side. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: > http://mybook.to/Gurlitt > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Jun 20 17:11:45 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 10:11:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day In-Reply-To: References: <00a701d1cb09$38dee150$aa9ca3f0$@att.net> <40E5B1EE-9C7E-42AE-A01E-C650DF0010D9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8233CB62-5182-457C-B4C9-B879A6D27AAE@gmail.com> On Jun 20, 2016, at 9:56 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Long before nuclear weapons, states having more armed men in the field lost battles and wars. That was never a guarantee of victory in battle or in wars. Often it lulled one side into thinking they would win or wouldn't be attacked because they had the larger numbers on their side. dan > > Just think of all the wars fought between France and England and today there is no territory in France that belongs to England and vice versa. What an enormous waste of men, materials and money. All for royal spite. Yes, the Normans has a relatively small force. And the English at Crecy and Agincourt had the smaller force. It might have been better had the French in both battles had a smaller force. Might have made them set aside heroic views and just wait for the English to run out of supplies or nerve. > My Dad was in WWI - born 1997 He was a time traveler? ;) Regards, Dan Sample my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Jun 20 18:03:32 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 19:03:32 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid destroyed the dinosaurs AND 93% of mammals also Message-ID: Over 90 percent of mammals were wiped out by dino-killing asteroid Michael Franco June 20, 2016 Quote: Researchers at the Milner Centre for Evolution at the University of Bath looked back over mammalian fossil reports and research that had been published for about the last 100 years, specifically focusing on the time frame on both sides of the meteor strike ? about 68 million years ago to 65.7 million years ago. They also concentrated on mammals in North America. Not only did they find that more mammals went extinct during this time than the roughly 75 percent previously thought, but also that they rebounded extremely quickly, with the number of species doubling those found before the impact in just 300,000 years ? a relatively short time in evolutionary terms. ---------------- Maybe if another few per cent of mammals had survived, intelligence might have evolved in a very different species. It's first survival of accidents, then survival of the fittest. BillK From atymes at gmail.com Mon Jun 20 19:33:00 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 12:33:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Jun 20, 2016 8:02 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: > "Oh how I hate to get up in the morning, > Oh how I'd love to remain in bed ..........." Unfortunately, sleeping forever is a euphemism for death for a good reason. (Though insufficient sleep may also heighten the risk for near term death.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Jun 20 20:38:09 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 20 Jun 2016 15:38:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: My Dad was in WWI - born 1997 He was a time traveler? ;) He was 45 when I was born and 50 when my sister was born. Mama born 1908. Unfortunately, sleeping forever is a euphemism for death for a good reason. (Though insufficient sleep may also heighten the risk for near term death.) Abed, not necessarily sleeping. Coffee the only reason I get up. Hey! Maybe the wife will bring me coffee in bed. That would remind me of high school when Mama served me breakfast in bed - said it was less trouble than trying to get me up. bill w On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 2:33 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Jun 20, 2016 8:02 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" > wrote: > > "Oh how I hate to get up in the morning, > > Oh how I'd love to remain in bed ..........." > > Unfortunately, sleeping forever is a euphemism for death for a good > reason. (Though insufficient sleep may also heighten the risk for near > term death.) > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Tue Jun 21 15:13:31 2016 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 17:13:31 +0200 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Paradiso_and_Inferno_in_Robin_Hanson=E2=80=99s_?= =?utf-8?b?4oCYVGhlIEFnZSBvZiBFbeKAmQ==?= Message-ID: Paradiso and Inferno in Robin Hanson?s ?The Age of Em? My review of Robin's much discussed new book. Come to Robin's presentation in Second Life next Sunday, June 26! Robin Hanson?s future scenario in ?The Age of Em: Work, Love and Life when Robots Rule the Earth? reminds me of Dante. On the one hand, many people will transcend (current concepts of) humanity and ?transhumanize? - a word invented by Dante in Paradiso, Canto 1 - to become uploaded souls running on high performance computing circuitry. On the other hand, they will live in red-hot metal cities that create strong hot winds to disperse the excess heat generated by billions of uploads computing their way to continued existence. The infernal city of Dis, described by Dante in Inferno, Canto 8, comes to mind... http://turingchurch.com/2016/06/21/paradiso-and-inferno-in-robin-hansons-the-age-of-em/ From protokol2020 at gmail.com Tue Jun 21 18:06:58 2016 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 20:06:58 +0200 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?Paradiso_and_Inferno_in_Robin_Hanson=E2=80=99s_?= =?utf-8?b?4oCYVGhlIEFnZSBvZiBFbeKAmQ==?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: A very good critics. But as you said once Giulio, you would like to write your own favorite scenario, had you the same writing talent as Robin. Never mind, tell us here what's your scenario. Might be an interesting one. If you wish to, of course. On Tue, Jun 21, 2016 at 5:13 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > Paradiso and Inferno in Robin Hanson?s ?The Age of Em? > > My review of Robin's much discussed new book. > > Come to Robin's presentation in Second Life next Sunday, June 26! > > Robin Hanson?s future scenario in ?The Age of Em: Work, Love and Life > when Robots Rule the Earth? reminds me of Dante. On the one hand, many > people will transcend (current concepts of) humanity and > ?transhumanize? - a word invented by Dante in Paradiso, Canto 1 - to > become uploaded souls running on high performance computing circuitry. > On the other hand, they will live in red-hot metal cities that create > strong hot winds to disperse the excess heat generated by billions of > uploads computing their way to continued existence. The infernal city > of Dis, described by Dante in Inferno, Canto 8, comes to mind... > > > http://turingchurch.com/2016/06/21/paradiso-and-inferno-in-robin-hansons-the-age-of-em/ > > _______________________________________________ > 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: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Jun 21 19:44:04 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 12:44:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] With Juno about to enter Jupiter orbit... Message-ID: I'm sure some folks are going to use the data to measure relativistic effects*, given that the orbiter will be traveling very fast (relatively to Jupiter) and also moving up and down Jupiter's gravity (relatively steep compared to Earth's) well. Has anyone publicly discussed that? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ * Obviously, done on plenty of other things, but it might be nice to do comparisons here, no? Not sure if this mission can provide any startling data or help make some of the work more precise. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Jun 21 20:17:33 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:17:33 +0100 Subject: [ExI] With Juno about to enter Jupiter orbit... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 21 June 2016 at 20:44, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > I'm sure some folks are going to use the data to measure relativistic > effects*, given that the orbiter will be traveling very fast (relatively to > Jupiter) and also moving up and down Jupiter's gravity (relatively steep > compared to Earth's) well. Has anyone publicly discussed that? > Wikipedia says that is one of the Juno science objectives. Quote: Measure the orbital frame-dragging, known also as Lense?Thirring precession caused by the angular momentum of Jupiter, and possibly a new test of general relativity effects connected with the Jovian rotation. BillK From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Jun 21 20:49:39 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 13:49:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] With Juno about to enter Jupiter orbit... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9DE2876E-BFFF-475F-81CB-A2BB48EFCB6A@gmail.com> On Jun 21, 2016, at 1:17 PM, BillK wrote: >> On 21 June 2016 at 20:44, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> I'm sure some folks are going to use the data to measure relativistic >> effects*, given that the orbiter will be traveling very fast (relatively to >> Jupiter) and also moving up and down Jupiter's gravity (relatively steep >> compared to Earth's) well. Has anyone publicly discussed that? > > > Wikipedia says that is one of the Juno science objectives. > > Quote: > Measure the orbital frame-dragging, known also as Lense?Thirring > precession caused by the angular momentum of Jupiter, and possibly a > new test of general relativity effects connected with the Jovian > rotation. Thanks. I missed that. ;) Regards, Dan Sample my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Jun 22 01:36:55 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:36:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Critical take on The Age of Em In-Reply-To: <53947B0E-67C0-4282-959A-06525952316F@gmu.edu> References: <872591BD-C19F-494C-8249-AC92B1B08B19@gmail.com> <53947B0E-67C0-4282-959A-06525952316F@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Robin D Hanson wrote: I suppose I count as having read it, but not as an independent evaluator. :) > > ### Finally I read Age of Em, and quite a few of its reviews as well. Let me go meta on them and commiserate with you: Most of the reviews are completely missing the point. They tend to apply a literary standard ("How do I feel about it") to a work meant more like a documentary, which should be judged by "How likely is it to be correct". Scott Alexander's review is most apt, and it is hard to add something substantive to any subject once Scott is done with it. But I'll try. Obviously, the largest objection is of low likelihood of the em future. I know, you cleverly defuse this criticism by agreeing that the likelihood of this scenario is 1/1000 and you still proceed with analysing it. But didn't you say that in this book you aim to straightforwardly apply the methods and knowledge of today's science to an aspect of the future? Yet when 100% of experts on AI say em is not likely to happen before AI, you do not take their opinion at face value. Something does not fit here. I think that the odds in favor of em as described before AI are even lower than 1/1000. Brains are difficult. Chips are easier. For em before AI you need it all - massive computing power, *and* a very detailed knowledge of brains and cognition in general, *and* a fantastically detailed scan of a particular human. Recently, a local intelligence explosion occurred at Google - a program taught itself to play Space Invaders, then Go, just by massively thinking about it (millions of rounds of reinforced learning from playing against itself). Intelligence explosions are a reality, and they already produce AI without recourse to human-derived structure, given enough computing power and enough learning examples. So for em before AI you would expect massive computing power, successful reinforced deep learning and billions of dollars to go nowhere for many decades. That's the first hurdle, and it's a huge one. But let's assume that AI will be stuck on Go for a 100 years. Neuroscience will catch up, and we will have the detailed knowledge of human brain function, necessary and sufficient to devise an emulation. Obviously, this won't happen in one fell swoop. There will be dozens or hundreds of partial emulations, painstakingly building up various aspects of a brain from thousands of data sources. At some point you will be able to connect multiple such partial networks into a generic model of a human mind. It will not have individual memories but it will have the ability to accept appropriately formatted input data, self-organize like a human brain and perform signal processing like a human brain, generating individual memories in this process, just like a human brain does. For your em scenario, this generic human model would have be stuck in neutral while a detailed individual scan is made and the knowledge derived from the generic human is used to transform this scan into a working individual emulation. It is very unlikely that generic mind models fail to materialize before the individual em you analyze. But, let's assume that we have individual em before AI and before generic em. In this situation I come to my second major objection: Your pervasive assumption that em will remain largely static in their overall structure and function. I think this assumption is at least as unlikely as the em-before-AI assumption. Imagine you find yourself in a world to which you are not well adapted at all, as a being evolved in the African veldt that had to tear flesh and woo women to make copies of self, but now you have the detailed knowledge of your own mind, the tools to modify it, and the ability to generate millions of copies to try out various modifications. How long would it take you to remake yourself to fit the silicon plains you live in? I know, you do analyze this possibility, you consider some options but in the end you still assume ems will be just like us. Of course, if ems are not like us, then a lot of the detailed sociological research produced on humans would not be very applicable to their world and the book would have to be shorter, but then it might be a better one. In one chapter you mention that lesbian women make more money and therefore lesbian ems might make money as well. This comes at the end of many levels of suspension of disbelief, making the sociology/gender/psychology chapters quite exhausting. Now, lest anybody thinks I am trashing Age of Em, I did enjoy reading many or maybe even most chapters. I liked the chapters analyzing basic physics of em computation, reversible computation, the intersection of economics and variable speed of ems, the economics of homo electro-economicus (as the ems might turn out to be), governance by auction among the economically literate and many other ideas. I feel that em clans would be even more prominent than you say. I think you give too much of a short-shrift to open-source ems. I understand the reasons but I disagree - the local training costs are likely to be low for the vast majority of generic workplaces and teaching open-source ems will be better than hiring proprietary ones, for security and other reasons. I don't think that ems will have the arc of life you describe (formation, training, work, retirement) - it will be possible to restructure aging ems to make them mentally young enough again, which goes directly against the pervasive assumption of (almost) static humanity you make. Skipping the detailed sociology chapters would do the book good, and instead you could have explored the alternative scenarios you briefly mention in one of the last chapters. Why not try to look at the interactions between AI (a form of capital) and uploaded ems (a mixture of capitalists and laborers) in an AI-before-em scenario? But overall, the book is a nerdvana for the transhumanist and can be recommended for all who like to think (as opposed to merely feel) about the future. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Jun 22 02:26:30 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 19:26:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Critical take on The Age of Em In-Reply-To: References: <872591BD-C19F-494C-8249-AC92B1B08B19@gmail.com> <53947B0E-67C0-4282-959A-06525952316F@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <95B8545C-E563-4999-A548-22EF50C2C7E9@gmail.com> On Jun 21, 2016, at 6:36 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: >> On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Robin D Hanson wrote: >> >> I suppose I count as having read it, but not as an independent evaluator. :) > ### Finally I read Age of Em, and quite a few of its reviews as well. Let me go meta on them and commiserate with you: Most of the reviews are completely missing the point. They tend to apply a literary standard ("How do I feel about it") to a work meant more like a documentary, which should be judged by "How likely is it to be correct". Scott Alexander's review is most apt, and it is hard to add something substantive to any subject once Scott is done with it. But I'll try. Haven't read the rest of your comments or the book yet, but I think that that's not really a literary standard. Rather, it's merely how those readers felt about it. (Which is no great crime because if one person feels one way about a book, others might too. That might helpful for someone deciding to read a book, no? Of course, it depends on why they're reading it...) And for nonfiction reviews, one can adopt a literary standard approach of did it make a good case for its conclusions? And 'good' here isn't necessarily subjective. It should be succinct, avoid likely criticisms, and not leave out too many steps (depending on the target audience). It's even better if it does so using easy to grasp models and metaphors and flows well. I've often seen this boiled down to: What point is the author making? and Why does she or he believe that? (In other words: conclusions and arguments/motivations.) Regards, Dan Sample my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 22 17:02:42 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 13:02:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Asteroid destroyed the dinosaurs AND 93% of mammals also In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 20, 2016 at 2:03 PM, BillK wrote: ?> ? > Maybe if another few per cent of mammals had survived, intelligence > ? ? > might have evolved in a very different species. > ? Maybe, but more likely no mammal or any other animal would have developed intelligence if the asteroid hadn't killed those specific species; a surviving species would have outcompeted one of our tree living ancestors and today nobody would ? be very smart. ? Intelligence probably needs a very unusual set of developments to happen. Life has been around for nearly 4 billion years and there have been hundreds of millions of species, but only one has had enough intelligence to develop technology, and that only happened about ten thousand years ago. ? That tells me that the Evolution ?of intelligence is far from inevitable, I think we just got lucky. ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Wed Jun 22 23:20:13 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 16:20:13 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Circumcision continued Message-ID: It's always a shock to find out that people you thought were close to you in thinking were so far off. Much of this is due to poor information out there in the general culture. One woman my wife asked told about her experience of being pressured at ever step before she left the hospital to circumcise her boy. She had a sign a waver to get her boy out. I thought that was weird and so did she until I read the Wikipedia article about the legal case that caused them to be required. They used to circumcise all of them as a matter of routine. There has been substantial discussion about the practice in the comments page at the current issue of The Economist. They had an article mainly about how to end the practice of FGM and it spawned a lot of discussion about MGM. (I am circumcised and don't mind it being called what it is, mutilation.) The point (valid or not) is that it's hard for the US to take a stand against FGM when it's the default treatment of males in the US. It's rare in Canada the UK and most of Europe. I talked to some lawyers I know and they say I am right about it being sex discrimination to outlaw FGM and not apply the same law to males. They also say it would not be hard to find plenty of qualified plaintiffs but it would be a waste of time and money since the appeals courts are full of judges of a certain faith who would take this as a personal attack and rule against you. So, what else can we do to reduce or end this barbaric practice? There are lots of good web sites out there, I don't think anyone who has read what you find by Googling for ?men do complain? would to this to their boy. But it doesn't get a lot of traffic. It flashed on me today that a tatoo that outlined the 15 square inches of skin (adult size) taken from men would be an effective way to get the word out. There are some who would do this permanent I am sure, but how about a temporary tat? I would wear this on a forearm at least sometimes. Dashed outline, 2 x 7.5, inside two versions, I am circumcised, this is the amount of skin I am missing. alternate I am uncircumcised, this is the amount of skin I still have. Inside the outline: www.mendocomplain.com/ or http://www.intactamerica.org/ This isn't an issue for list members outside the US, but I welcome all comment about the idea. It may or may not have merit. What do you think? Keith PS. The long term losers in ending most circumcision would be the "personal lubricant" manufacturers. Always wondered why it was needed. From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Jun 22 13:03:43 2016 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin D Hanson) Date: Wed, 22 Jun 2016 13:03:43 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Critical take on The Age of Em In-Reply-To: References: <872591BD-C19F-494C-8249-AC92B1B08B19@gmail.com> <53947B0E-67C0-4282-959A-06525952316F@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <78E77BF0-FE0C-47DD-97BC-64D13018E2CB@gmu.edu> On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:36 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: On Tue, Jun 7, 2016 at 9:13 PM, Robin D Hanson > wrote: I suppose I count as having read it, but not as an independent evaluator. :) ### Finally I read Age of Em, and quite a few of its reviews as well. Let me go meta on them and commiserate with you: Most of the reviews are completely missing the point. They tend to apply a literary standard ("How do I feel about it") to a work meant more like a documentary, which should be judged by "How likely is it to be correct". Scott Alexander's review is most apt, and it is hard to add something substantive to any subject once Scott is done with it. But I'll try. Well with Oxford as publisher I am trying to straddle the line between an academic and a trade book. I would, as you indicate, rather be judged on ?is it correct?, but trade books are more judged by ?how do you feel about it?. Obviously, the largest objection is of low likelihood of the em future. I know, you cleverly defuse this criticism by agreeing that the likelihood of this scenario is 1/1000 and you still proceed with analysing it. But didn't you say that in this book you aim to straightforwardly apply the methods and knowledge of today's science to an aspect of the future? Yet when 100% of experts on AI say em is not likely to happen before AI, you do not take their opinion at face value. Something does not fit here. 100% does not remotely sound correct. I request a citation for that figure. I think that the odds in favor of em as described before AI are even lower than 1/1000. Brains are difficult. Chips are easier. For em before AI you need it all - massive computing power, *and* a very detailed knowledge of brains and cognition in general, *and* a fantastically detailed scan of a particular human. Recently, a local intelligence explosion occurred at Google - a program taught itself to play Space Invaders, then Go, just by massively thinking about it (millions of rounds of reinforced learning from playing against itself). Intelligence explosions are a reality, and they already produce AI without recourse to human-derived structure, given enough computing power and enough learning examples. So for em before AI you would expect massive computing power, successful reinforced deep learning and billions of dollars to go nowhere for many decades. That's the first hurdle, and it's a huge one. There has indeed been a welcome burst of progress in machine learning lately, but we have seen bursts of progress in AI before, and we are still lightyears away from achieving human level AI. At the average rates of progress we?ve seen in the past we have centuries still to go. Also you aren?t using the phrase ?intelligence explosion? the way it is usually used. But the usual definition, these observed bursts of progress don?t count. But let's assume that AI will be stuck on Go for a 100 years. Neuroscience will catch up, and we will have the detailed knowledge of human brain function, necessary and sufficient to devise an emulation. Obviously, this won't happen in one fell swoop. There will be dozens or hundreds of partial emulations, painstakingly building up various aspects of a brain from thousands of data sources. At some point you will be able to connect multiple such partial networks into a generic model of a human mind. It will not have individual memories but it will have the ability to accept appropriately formatted input data, self-organize like a human brain and perform signal processing like a human brain, generating individual memories in this process, just like a human brain does. For your em scenario, this generic human model would have be stuck in neutral while a detailed individual scan is made and the knowledge derived from the generic human is used to transform this scan into a working individual emulation. It is very unlikely that generic mind models fail to materialize before the individual em you analyze. Imagine someone gave you dozens of examples of financial spaghetti code from decades ago, all of which do a similar range of financial tasks. And all you have is the object code, not the source code. It would be very hard to abstract from those examples a ?generic? financial system capable of doing those financial tasks. That isn?t a remotely easy task. To create a generic brain you have to abstract usefully from the spaghetti object code that is the human brain. But, let's assume that we have individual em before AI and before generic em. In this situation I come to my second major objection: Your pervasive assumption that em will remain largely static in their overall structure and function. I think this assumption is at least as unlikely as the em-before-AI assumption. Imagine you find yourself in a world to which you are not well adapted at all, as a being evolved in the African veldt that had to tear flesh and woo women to make copies of self, but now you have the detailed knowledge of your own mind, the tools to modify it, and the ability to generate millions of copies to try out various modifications. How long would it take you to remake yourself to fit the silicon plains you live in? I know, you do analyze this possibility, you consider some options but in the end you still assume ems will be just like us. If you had a huge piece of legacy object spaghetti code for a financial system, you would also find it hard to usefully change that if you did not understand it. And the human mind is vastly more complex than any known legacy financial code. Of course, if ems are not like us, then a lot of the detailed sociological research produced on humans would not be very applicable to their world and the book would have to be shorter, but then it might be a better one. In one chapter you mention that lesbian women make more money and therefore lesbian ems might make money as well. This comes at the end of many levels of suspension of disbelief, making the sociology/gender/psychology chapters quite exhausting. Can you say which direction that you think the ability to self-modify brains will change the relative earning ability of lesbian women relative to non-lesbian woman? If not, the value for women today remains our best estimate for the future. Now, lest anybody thinks I am trashing Age of Em, I did enjoy reading many or maybe even most chapters. I liked the chapters analyzing basic physics of em computation, reversible computation, the intersection of economics and variable speed of ems, the economics of homo electro-economicus (as the ems might turn out to be), governance by auction among the economically literate and many other ideas. Thanks; I?m glad you enjoyed a lot. :) I feel that em clans would be even more prominent than you say. I think you give too much of a short-shrift to open-source ems. I understand the reasons but I disagree - the local training costs are likely to be low for the vast majority of generic workplaces and teaching open-source ems will be better than hiring proprietary ones, for security and other reasons. There can be many other fixed costs in labor markets besides training, and all fixed costs discourage open source ems. I don't think that ems will have the arc of life you describe (formation, training, work, retirement) - it will be possible to restructure aging ems to make them mentally young enough again, which goes directly against the pervasive assumption of (almost) static humanity you make. I guess you don?t believe in software rot? You think it possible to teach real legacy software systems and make them young again? People try to do this with refactoring, but it is very hard and has only limited success. Skipping the detailed sociology chapters would do the book good, and instead you could have explored the alternative scenarios you briefly mention in one of the last chapters. Why not try to look at the interactions between AI (a form of capital) and uploaded ems (a mixture of capitalists and laborers) in an AI-before-em scenario? That will have to wait for another book. But overall, the book is a nerdvana for the transhumanist and can be recommended for all who like to think (as opposed to merely feel) about the future. Yay! :) Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu Future of Humanity Inst., Oxford University Assoc. Prof. Economics, George Mason University See my new book: http://ageofem.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Jun 23 05:04:46 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 01:04:46 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Critical take on The Age of Em In-Reply-To: <78E77BF0-FE0C-47DD-97BC-64D13018E2CB@gmu.edu> References: <872591BD-C19F-494C-8249-AC92B1B08B19@gmail.com> <53947B0E-67C0-4282-959A-06525952316F@gmu.edu> <78E77BF0-FE0C-47DD-97BC-64D13018E2CB@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On Wed, Jun 22, 2016 at 9:03 AM, Robin D Hanson wrote: > On Jun 21, 2016, at 9:36 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: > > Yet when 100% of experts on AI say em is not likely to happen before AI, > you do not take their opinion at face value. Something does not fit here. > > 100% does not remotely sound correct. I request a citation for that > figure. > ### In chapter 4 you quote a survey of AI researchers (Mueller and Bostrom 2014), and you mention that ""none of these 29 thought that brain emulation "might contribute the most" to human level AI"". I take this to mean that they think human level AI won't be first implemented as a em. If the first AI was in fact an em, then ems would be contributing the most (i.e. all) to first human level AI. If ems are not contributing the most to human level AI, then the first human level AI is not an em. -------------------- > Also you aren?t using the phrase ?intelligence explosion? the way it is > usually used. But the usual definition, these observed bursts of progress > don?t count. > ### Well, yes, I called it local intelligence explosion but I think that the usage does point to some interesting parallels between I.J. Good's intelligence explosion and the AlphaGo. I'll write more on that in a separate post. -------------------- Robin wrote: Imagine someone gave you dozens of examples of financial spaghetti code > from decades ago, all of which do a similar range of financial tasks. And > all you have is the object code, not the source code. It would be very hard > to abstract from those examples a ?generic? financial system capable of > doing those financial tasks. That isn?t a remotely easy task. To create a > generic brain you have to abstract usefully from the spaghetti object code > that is the human brain. > ### Ems will be software but not much like today's software. Reasoning by analogy is quite tricky and very uncertain if the analogies break down even mildly. Today's software has a bewildering variety of languages, approaches, structures. Ems will be minor variations on a theme. Object code is not obviously modular. Human brains are modular. Software comes with some programmer remarks in source code. Humans come with whole scientific disciplines devoted to producing descriptions of the human brain on many levels. By assumption these disciplines will have developed tremendously beyond today's level in the scenario we analyze. Existing software you refer to (financial analysis software from decades ago) was explicitly coded, in great detail and does not self-organize. Human brains are designed to self-organize from basic principles acting on generic hardware and local input data, producing individual detailed structure (memories). As we discussed here before, the size and complexity of the generic principles in human brain is orders of magnitude smaller than the size of data structures produced by self-organization. This implies that you need to know only a small number of principles to build a self-organizing device, the generic human mind em. ------------- Robin wrote: I guess you don?t believe in software rot? You think it possible to teach real legacy software systems and make them young again? People try to do this with refactoring, but it is very hard and has only limited success. ### Think about the following: A brain-machine interface uses a few hundred electrodes and signal processing software to bypass large chunks of signal processing wetware and to replicate limb movement. Using the crudest equipment you bypass the cerebellum, some subcortical structures, the spinal cord and you successfully move a limb. This means you can get useful functional division of the human brain even without detailed cell-by-cell access. And ems will have random access to all cell states, and a huge amount of knowledge of their interactions. We already know that the human brain is highly modular, and there are many forms of memory and learning implemented in distinct modules. The em will be able to isolate and keep some protected content (most important personal memories and attitudes) and flush away cruft, something not easy to achieve with the spaghetti software you mention, because the em is a different type of software. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Jun 23 09:33:35 2016 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin D Hanson) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 09:33:35 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Critical take on The Age of Em In-Reply-To: References: <872591BD-C19F-494C-8249-AC92B1B08B19@gmail.com> <53947B0E-67C0-4282-959A-06525952316F@gmu.edu> <78E77BF0-FE0C-47DD-97BC-64D13018E2CB@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On Jun 23, 2016, at 1:04 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: Imagine someone gave you dozens of examples of financial spaghetti code from decades ago, all of which do a similar range of financial tasks. And all you have is the object code, not the source code. It would be very hard to abstract from those examples a ?generic? financial system capable of doing those financial tasks. That isn?t a remotely easy task. To create a generic brain you have to abstract usefully from the spaghetti object code that is the human brain. ### Ems will be software but not much like today's software. Reasoning by analogy is quite tricky and very uncertain if the analogies break down even mildly. Today's software has a bewildering variety of languages, approaches, structures. Ems will be minor variations on a theme. Object code is not obviously modular. Human brains are modular. Software comes with some programmer remarks in source code. Humans come with whole scientific disciplines devoted to producing descriptions of the human brain on many levels. By assumption these disciplines will have developed tremendously beyond today's level in the scenario we analyze. Existing software you refer to (financial analysis software from decades ago) was explicitly coded, in great detail and does not self-organize. Human brains are designed to self-organize from basic principles acting on generic hardware and local input data, producing individual detailed structure (memories). As we discussed here before, the size and complexity of the generic principles in human brain is orders of magnitude smaller than the size of data structures produced by self-organization. This implies that you need to know only a small number of principles to build a self-organizing device, the generic human mind em. Yes many kinds of software today don?t do much learning, but we do have many real systems that do learn, usually based on statistics. (We also know of many software systems where the object code is much larger than the source code for other reasons.) So if you think that makes a huge difference, then imagine instead that someone gave you dozens of examples of statistical analysis code from decades ago. You?d have the same problem. You don?t know that human brains are any more modular than is typical software. You don?t know that it only embodies a small number of principles, without masses of other implementation details also required for it work. And you don?t know that the many different parts of the brain are all written in the same ?language?. I guess you don?t believe in software rot? You think it possible to teach real legacy software systems and make them young again? People try to do this with refactoring, but it is very hard and has only limited success. ### Think about the following: A brain-machine interface uses a few hundred electrodes and signal processing software to bypass large chunks of signal processing wetware and to replicate limb movement. Using the crudest equipment you bypass the cerebellum, some subcortical structures, the spinal cord and you successfully move a limb. This means you can get useful functional division of the human brain even without detailed cell-by-cell access. And ems will have random access to all cell states, and a huge amount of knowledge of their interactions. We already know that the human brain is highly modular, and there are many forms of memory and learning implemented in distinct modules. The em will be able to isolate and keep some protected content (most important personal memories and attitudes) and flush away cruft, something not easy to achieve with the spaghetti software you mention, because the em is a different type of software. This one datum doesn?t indicate that the brain is any more modular that most software systems. Saying it is a ?different type? and thus vastly easier to understand and modify just sounds like wishful thinking. Robin Hanson rhanson at gmu.edu Future of Humanity Inst., Oxford University Assoc. Prof. Economics, George Mason University See my new book: http://ageofem.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 23 20:47:09 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:47:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] electronics help! Message-ID: Bought an LG DVD player, advertised as a CD player, on eBay. Refurbished. So I got it today and the only connection in the back is HDMI out to TV. Now - is there any way to connect this to my stereo receiver? Radio Shack a far drive, or I'd ask them. Thanks! bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 23 20:54:29 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 15:54:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] stereo adapter - ignore last email Message-ID: Found it on eBay when my mind started working. Sorry bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jun 23 21:44:14 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 22:44:14 +0100 Subject: [ExI] electronics help! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 23 June 2016 at 21:47, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Bought an LG DVD player, advertised as a CD player, on eBay. Refurbished.> > So I got it today and the only connection in the back is HDMI out to TV. > > Now - is there any way to connect this to my stereo receiver? Radio Shack > a far drive, or I'd ask them. > The simple answer is No. :) It sounds as though you have the basic DVD player only intended to connect to TV. Good value for the price. It should also have a USB input socket on the front so you can also play video from a USB memory stick. If you Google the exact model number you may find a technical reference manual online. BillK From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jun 23 22:16:34 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 23:16:34 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Autonomous car ethics Message-ID: Should a self-driving car kill its passengers for the greater good ? for instance, by swerving into a wall to avoid hitting a large number of pedestrians? Surveys of nearly 2,000 US residents revealed that, while we strongly agree that autonomous vehicles should strive to save as many lives as possible, we are not willing to buy such a car for ourselves, preferring instead one that tries to preserve the lives of its passengers at all costs. Quote: As the researchers explained, this problem is a glaring example of the so-called tragedy of the commons, a situation in which a shared resource is depleted by individual users acting out of self-interest. In this case, even though society as a whole would be better off using utilitarian algorithms alone, an individual can still improve his chances of survival by choosing a self-preserving car at the cost of overall public safety. -------------- BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 23 22:44:04 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:44:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] electronics help! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You did not get my second email. Sorry. I did find RCA to HDMI adaptor on eBay, so no problem. It plays a truly amazing number of formats. refurb - $30 bill w On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:44 PM, BillK wrote: > On 23 June 2016 at 21:47, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Bought an LG DVD player, advertised as a CD player, on eBay. > Refurbished.> > > So I got it today and the only connection in the back is HDMI out to TV. > > > > Now - is there any way to connect this to my stereo receiver? Radio > Shack > > a far drive, or I'd ask them. > > > > The simple answer is No. :) > > It sounds as though you have the basic DVD player only intended to > connect to TV. > Good value for the price. It should also have a USB input socket on > the front so you can also play video from a USB memory stick. > If you Google the exact model number you may find a technical > reference manual online. > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 23 22:46:48 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:46:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Autonomous car ethics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: an individual can still improve his chances of survival by choosing a self-preserving car at the cost of overall public safety. BillK I'd like to know the situations that were or would be presented to the AI driver. Would the car run off a cliff to avoid hitting more people than were in the car? bill w On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 5:16 PM, BillK wrote: > Should a self-driving car kill its passengers for the greater good ? > for instance, by swerving into a wall to avoid hitting a large number > of pedestrians? Surveys of nearly 2,000 US residents revealed that, > while we strongly agree that autonomous vehicles should strive to save > as many lives as possible, we are not willing to buy such a car for > ourselves, preferring instead one that tries to preserve the lives of > its passengers at all costs. > > > > Quote: > As the researchers explained, this problem is a glaring example of the > so-called tragedy of the commons, a situation in which a shared > resource is depleted by individual users acting out of self-interest. > In this case, even though society as a whole would be better off using > utilitarian algorithms alone, an individual can still improve his > chances of survival by choosing a self-preserving car at the cost of > overall public safety. > -------------- > > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 23 23:17:44 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 18:17:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] parents Message-ID: Once upon a time I taught an undergraduate course in Human Sexuality. Very little that the students knew, or didn't, or thought, surprised me. Vast ignorance, of course, and full of superstitions. But to my subject: one thing grossed them out. No, it wasn't any sort of kinky sex, or rape or anything you might think of off the top of your head. It was the idea of their parents making love. Oh the body language I got when that topic came up. It was the mental image, the visual idea of those two having at it, they said. In a prior poll I took in class, many thought that their parents had stopped having sex, and of course the parents were mostly in their 40s. I introduced the idea of other than penile-vaginal sex. "My Mother???!!! Not my mother!!!!" To extend the idea some, I asked if they were grossed out by the mental image of fat people, or ugly, or very old people having sex. Oh yes, those too! Even the idea of their parents, esp. their mother, actually enjoying it, having orgasms, laughing and having fun, or screaming, was taboo. Gross. Now I know my Freud and all, but that really surprised me - a very powerful form of denial. FYI - the US is characterized worldwide as a moderately repressed society re sex. Not the usual image, right? (Ireland - very repressed. Scandanavia - very open and relaxed). Does it surprise you? Do you have some idea why this is so? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Fri Jun 24 12:00:10 2016 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 08:00:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Autonomous car ethics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:16 PM, BillK wrote: > Should a self-driving car kill its passengers for the greater good ? Oh, the many ways that can be exploited. Imagine a passenger gets into the car with a machine gun and a bomb vest (or some equally absurd situation) ... Can we expect the car to drive off the cliff "for the greater good" ? Of course the guy is a terrorist, and of course the car is equipped with enough intention-sensors to know it. (yes, intention-sensors: because intelligence is effectively prediction and anticipation, so AI is about reliably guessing the future from clues available in the present) idk, I feel like discussing 'ethics' for cars is taking the conversation down a literal wrong road. From sparge at gmail.com Fri Jun 24 14:02:10 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 10:02:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Autonomous car ethics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > idk, I feel like discussing 'ethics' for cars is taking the > conversation down a literal wrong road. > Regardless of what you call it, self-driving cars have to be programmed to handle unavoidable accidents. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Jun 24 19:44:11 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 20:44:11 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Autonomous car ethics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 24 June 2016 at 15:02, Dave Sill wrote: > On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 8:00 AM, Mike Dougherty wrote: >> idk, I feel like discussing 'ethics' for cars is taking the >> conversation down a literal wrong road. > > > Regardless of what you call it, self-driving cars have to be programmed to > handle unavoidable accidents. > Yes. But the researchers are making the point that people won't buy / use a robot car that won't take all possible steps to protect the passengers. That must also be the cheapest / most profitable type of car to build as well. In the seconds available to analyse the situation, there is not enough time to make a value judgement of all possible consequences. Just sending a call for assistance and deciding how best to protect the passengers while minimising other damage is a difficult enough task BillK From anders at aleph.se Fri Jun 24 08:13:03 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 09:13:03 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Autonomous car ethics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <91b84cb4-f603-984c-2c02-b620dfbc46d0@aleph.se> The original paper can be found at http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6293/1573 The discrepancy is similar to attitudes in the Riis, Simmons et al. study on cognitive enhancers: there was no correlation between willingness to take different enhancers and willingness to ban them. People were quite happy to take enhancers they thought should be banned. A reason might be that people think it would be bad for society to have the enhancers in question around because they would cause more competition, but considering their own life enhancement would be good for them. So they actually hold a rational position. Except that it produces a public goods dilemma (maybe... I think their evaluation on the competition point is just wrong). On 2016-06-23 23:16, BillK wrote: > Should a self-driving car kill its passengers for the greater good ? > for instance, by swerving into a wall to avoid hitting a large number > of pedestrians? Surveys of nearly 2,000 US residents revealed that, > while we strongly agree that autonomous vehicles should strive to save > as many lives as possible, we are not willing to buy such a car for > ourselves, preferring instead one that tries to preserve the lives of > its passengers at all costs. > > > > Quote: > As the researchers explained, this problem is a glaring example of the > so-called tragedy of the commons, a situation in which a shared > resource is depleted by individual users acting out of self-interest. > In this case, even though society as a whole would be better off using > utilitarian algorithms alone, an individual can still improve his > chances of survival by choosing a self-preserving car at the cost of > overall public safety. > -------------- > > > BillK > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Jun 24 22:57:54 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 17:57:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Autonomous car ethics In-Reply-To: <91b84cb4-f603-984c-2c02-b620dfbc46d0@aleph.se> References: <91b84cb4-f603-984c-2c02-b620dfbc46d0@aleph.se> Message-ID: The discrepancy is similar to attitudes in the Riis, Simmons et al. study on cognitive enhancers: there was no correlation between willingness to take different enhancers and willingness to ban them. People were quite happy to take enhancers they thought should be banned. anders I think it's a superiority thing as well. "I can handle these things but lesser people might not and cause who knows what sorts of trouble." This sort of hypocrisy exists in politicians who smoke dope and snort cocaine but are unwilling to vote to make them legal. bill w On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:13 AM, Anders wrote: > The original paper can be found at > http://science.sciencemag.org/content/352/6293/1573 > > The discrepancy is similar to attitudes in the Riis, Simmons et al. study > on cognitive enhancers: there was no correlation between willingness to > take different enhancers and willingness to ban them. People were quite > happy to take enhancers they thought should be banned. > > A reason might be that people think it would be bad for society to have > the enhancers in question around because they would cause more competition, > but considering their own life enhancement would be good for them. So they > actually hold a rational position. Except that it produces a public goods > dilemma (maybe... I think their evaluation on the competition point is just > wrong). > > > > On 2016-06-23 23:16, BillK wrote: > >> Should a self-driving car kill its passengers for the greater good ? >> for instance, by swerving into a wall to avoid hitting a large number >> of pedestrians? Surveys of nearly 2,000 US residents revealed that, >> while we strongly agree that autonomous vehicles should strive to save >> as many lives as possible, we are not willing to buy such a car for >> ourselves, preferring instead one that tries to preserve the lives of >> its passengers at all costs. >> >> >> >> Quote: >> As the researchers explained, this problem is a glaring example of the >> so-called tragedy of the commons, a situation in which a shared >> resource is depleted by individual users acting out of self-interest. >> In this case, even though society as a whole would be better off using >> utilitarian algorithms alone, an individual can still improve his >> chances of survival by choosing a self-preserving car at the cost of >> overall public safety. >> -------------- >> >> >> BillK >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > -- > Dr Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Oxford University > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Jun 24 23:03:25 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 19:03:25 -0400 Subject: [ExI] LIGO Message-ID: A new analysis in the journal Nature ?by ? Krzysztof Belczynski ? ? predicts that when LIGO ? ? reaches ? ? full sensitivity in 3 ?to? 4 years it will ?see ? Black Hole mergers in the 20 to 80 solal mass range about once every 9 hours ?,? assuming the Black Holes came from dead stars and not from the first nanosecond of the Big Bang ?,? if some Black Holes are primordial it would happen more often. Since it's pretty easy to determine from how far away the gravitational waves ?came ? and with ?at? least a? thousand ?new ? data points a year we should be able map out the entire universe, ?including ? ?both? ?dark matter and regular matter , with unprecedented detail. Unfortunately Belczynski ? ? also predicts we'll only see ? ? about ? ? one collision between 2 neutron stars a year because of their much weaker gravitational waves. Oh well you can't have everything. ? ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Jun 24 23:14:18 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 16:14:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] LIGO In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004601d1ce6e$22f10400$68d30c00$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark Subject: [ExI] LIGO >?A new analysis in the journal Nature ?by ?Krzysztof Belczynski predicts that when LIGO reaches full sensitivity in 3 ?to? 4 years it will see ?Black Hole mergers in the 20 to 80 solal mass range about once every 9 hours? John K Clark John if this prediction is right, we need to rethink everything we thought we knew about the big bang and dark matter. Let?s hope so: I am eager to rethink that. I have never been satisfied with the notion of dark matter. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Sat Jun 25 00:49:58 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 20:49:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Autonomous car ethics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 3:44 PM, BillK wrote: > > Yes. But the researchers are making the point that people won't buy / > use a robot car that won't take all possible steps to protect the > passengers. > And the first time a self-driving car plows through a pack of pedestrians, Democrats in congress will stage a sit-in demanding that self-driving cars avoid pedestrians. > That must also be the cheapest / most profitable type of car to build > as well. In the seconds available to analyse the situation, there is > not enough time to make a value judgement of all possible > consequences. Just sending a call for assistance and deciding how best > to protect the passengers while minimising other damage is a difficult > enough task Driving a car is pretty damned difficult task. The seconds it takes an accident to unfold are not enough time for humans to well-considered decisions, but it's a relative eternitity for computer. Plenty to time to choose colliding with a vehicle going in the same direction vs. a vehicle coming the other way, or colliding with a low wall vs. an abutment. My point is that self-driving cars will have to make these decisions, and just because buyers want feature X doesn't mean buyers will get feature X. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Sat Jun 25 06:26:49 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Fri, 24 Jun 2016 23:26:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] If you are old this might help some of you Message-ID: About 9 months ago I started taking nicotinamide riboside on the advice of a doctor I have known for 30 years who is in the anti aging field. I am on a low dose, two a day of these. Doctor?s Best Niagen (nicotinamide riboside) 75 mg 60 VCaps I mentioned what I was doing to another doctor in Oceanside who worked on my back 2 years ago. Found out he is taking it too, more than I am. The June 17 issue of Science had 3 articles on it, including one that showed mice on it living noticeably longer. I buy it from iHerb at a reasonable discount along with things like DHEA, zinc and resveratrol. It seems to do the mild things they talk about, I sleep a little longer and parts of me that hurt, hurt less now. >From what I see on-line, younger people have mixed reactions to it while us old farts respond more consistently. YMMV Keith From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Jun 25 06:33:55 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 02:33:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Autonomous car ethics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Jun 24, 2016 at 8:49 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > > > My point is that self-driving cars will have to make these decisions, and > just because buyers want feature X doesn't mean buyers will get feature X. > ### The solutions to the problem would depend on how the liability for wrongful death is handled. I am assuming the deaths of car users and third parties would be valued the same. If a political/juridical decision is made to hold the car manufacturer liable, the manufacturer would only sell cars that kill the minimum number of people under the chosen performance constraints. The manufacturer probably would not offer cars guaranteed to protect driver because it would increase its liability. Of course, the manufacturer might choose to offer such protective cars at a higher price but this might result in unwanted publicity. It would be easy for others to accuse the manufacturer of trading lives for money, or encouraging such trade, a form of taboo trade-off, and in the emotion-driven world of sales this might tarnish the brand. If the owner of the car was liable, using a protective car would increase the owner's insurance premiums. Here the outcome is hard to predict, given various opposing social pressures acting in relative privacy (I am assuming the owner would not be obliged to disclose the loyalties of his car). Signaling altruism, fear of own death, actual altruistic concern for the lives of others, financial considerations, all these would be weighed individually, with diverse outcomes. It is likely that eventually the loyalties of cars and other robots would become regulated by statute, which is the common outcome in an aging legal system. Due to the overall massively lower death risk with robot cars, the net impact of one or the other solution (death-minimizing vs. passenger-protecting) would be minuscule. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Sat Jun 25 15:04:29 2016 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 17:04:29 +0200 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?The_Age_of_Em_=E2=80=93_Robin_Hanson_in_Second_Li?= =?utf-8?q?fe=2C_Tomorrow_=28Sunday_June_26=29?= Message-ID: The Age of Em ? Robin Hanson in Second Life, Sunday June 26 http://turingchurch.com/2016/06/25/the-age-of-em-robin-hanson-in-second-life-sunday-june-26/ Robin Hanson will present his new book ?The Age of Em: Work, Love and Life when Robots Rule the Earth? at the next Turing Church meeting in Second Life on Sunday, June 26. The presentation will be followed by a discussion, and everyone will be able to ask questions... A book presentation in Second Life is a natural fit for ?The Age of Em.? According to Robin, the ?ems? (uploaded humans running on suitable computing hardware) that will inherit the Earth will live most of their life as pure software in virtual reality... Second Life, primitive as it is compared to future standards, is a good mental model for the virtual reality habitats of future ems... Perhaps our collective mind designed Second Life to start experimenting with our future habitats. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hibbert at mydruthers.com Sat Jun 25 17:16:45 2016 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 10:16:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Autonomous car ethics Message-ID: <40c8c61b-fd36-8127-340f-49aac5675141@mydruthers.com> > Should a self-driving car kill its passengers for the greater good ? > for instance, by swerving into a wall to avoid hitting a large number > of pedestrians? This is entirely an academic philosophy question, and not at all a question that needs to be resolved before self-driving cars should be put on the road. I'd be willing to bet that there aren't *any* incidents in the training database that Google's cars have collected from millions of miles of driving that show a situation in which the driver has to choose between injuring or killing the occupants and injuring or killing anyone outside the car. In addition, I'll add in all the miles driven by anyone on this list, and claim that it's really unlikely that any of *you* have encountered such a situation either. If drivers drive at sane speeds on roads that are navigable and have decent traction, you can slow down early enough that you won't come across such a situation. I won't claim that such situations have *never* happened, but they're so rare that expecting humans to do the right thing with their slow reaction times is so unlikely that we have nothing to compare hypothetical autonomous cars to. Chris -- Every machine that's put into a factory displaces labour. [...] The man who's put to work [on] the machine isn't any better off than he was before; the three men that are thrown out of a job are very much worse off. But the cure isn't Socialism, [it's] for somebody to buckle to and make a job for the three men. Nevil Shute, _Ruined City_ Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com http://mydruthers.com From spike66 at att.net Sat Jun 25 19:06:46 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 12:06:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Autonomous car ethics In-Reply-To: <40c8c61b-fd36-8127-340f-49aac5675141@mydruthers.com> References: <40c8c61b-fd36-8127-340f-49aac5675141@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: <00b301d1cf14$b8971660$29c54320$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Chris Hibbert Sent: Saturday, June 25, 2016 10:17 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] Autonomous car ethics > >...Should a self-driving car kill its passengers for the greater good ? > for instance, by swerving into a wall to avoid hitting a large number > of pedestrians? >...This is entirely an academic philosophy question, and not at all a question that needs to be resolved before self-driving cars should be put on the road...Chris -- I may have misunderstood what I was told about the algorithm or something has changed, but I heard that swerving is not one of the evasive maneuvers available to a self-driver. In an emergency situation it brakes hard. It can move to one side of the lane if that space is clear but if an unaware driver starts to drift over (a situation perhaps everyone here has been in, and possibly even done) then the self-driver brakes hard while moving away but doesn't do anything analogous to a human driver swerving. If a squirrel or dog darts out, the car brakes hard but doesn't swerve to miss. This feature introduces new challenges and possibly dangers. We humans look through the car ahead of us, perhaps without even being aware we are doing it. If the car in front of us has a clear road in front of it, that car can sometimes cause an accident by suddenly braking hard. I am told some insurance company scammers do this, since it is the fault of the guy in back. OK so as self-drivers become more common over the next few years, we need to give the car ahead of us a little more room, unless we have auto-braking. Note that one of the unintended consequences of anti-lock brakes is that it might have caused the car with it to have less risk of hitting a Detroit in front but increased the risk of being hit by a Detroit from behind. If a prole has that feature and the prole behind does not, the guy up front can get maximum braking every time. In the transition period while some cars had it and some didn't, you have this paradoxical increased risk. I saw the steering-wheel-free Google car over in Mountain View last month. Cool! spike From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jun 25 20:01:23 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 21:01:23 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Autonomous car ethics In-Reply-To: <00b301d1cf14$b8971660$29c54320$@att.net> References: <40c8c61b-fd36-8127-340f-49aac5675141@mydruthers.com> <00b301d1cf14$b8971660$29c54320$@att.net> Message-ID: On 25 June 2016 at 20:06, spike wrote: > OK so as self-drivers become more common over the next few years, we need to > give the car ahead of us a little more room, unless we have auto-braking. > Note that one of the unintended consequences of anti-lock brakes is that it > might have caused the car with it to have less risk of hitting a Detroit in > front but increased the risk of being hit by a Detroit from behind. If a > prole has that feature and the prole behind does not, the guy up front can > get maximum braking every time. In the transition period while some cars > had it and some didn't, you have this paradoxical increased risk. > Another thought is that once self-drivers become common and the algos have improved and there is automatic car-to-car communication, then there will be no need for speed limits or traffic lights. The algos will always drive safely according to the conditions, but that could be at very high speeds. It would be amazing to see them performing beyond human capabilities. BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Jun 25 20:55:11 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 15:55:11 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Autonomous car ethics In-Reply-To: References: <40c8c61b-fd36-8127-340f-49aac5675141@mydruthers.com> <00b301d1cf14$b8971660$29c54320$@att.net> Message-ID: If a squirrel or dog darts out, the car brakes hard but doesn't swerve to miss. I cannot fathom why swerving is not included in the software. It is the tendency of the average driver in a tense situation to just slam on the brakes, but many situations call for steering out of trouble, as I have been told by a race driver. Now I can see the hazard of swerving when one is on a multilane road in Los Angeles. Otherwise, no. If just slamming on the brakes is the only method I see millions spent on replacing air bags - which, incidentally, have been known to kill people. bill w On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 3:01 PM, BillK wrote: > On 25 June 2016 at 20:06, spike wrote: > > > OK so as self-drivers become more common over the next few years, we > need to > > give the car ahead of us a little more room, unless we have auto-braking. > > Note that one of the unintended consequences of anti-lock brakes is that > it > > might have caused the car with it to have less risk of hitting a Detroit > in > > front but increased the risk of being hit by a Detroit from behind. If a > > prole has that feature and the prole behind does not, the guy up front > can > > get maximum braking every time. In the transition period while some cars > > had it and some didn't, you have this paradoxical increased risk. > > > > > Another thought is that once self-drivers become common and the algos > have improved and there is automatic car-to-car communication, then > there will be no need for speed limits or traffic lights. The algos > will always drive safely according to the conditions, but that could > be at very high speeds. It would be amazing to see them performing > beyond human capabilities. > > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Jun 25 22:37:22 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 23:37:22 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Autonomous car ethics In-Reply-To: <00b301d1cf14$b8971660$29c54320$@att.net> References: <40c8c61b-fd36-8127-340f-49aac5675141@mydruthers.com> <00b301d1cf14$b8971660$29c54320$@att.net> Message-ID: On 25 June 2016 at 20:06, spike wrote: > I may have misunderstood what I was told about the algorithm or something > has changed, but I heard that swerving is not one of the evasive maneuvers > available to a self-driver. In an emergency situation it brakes hard. It > can move to one side of the lane if that space is clear but if an unaware > driver starts to drift over (a situation perhaps everyone here has been in, > and possibly even done) then the self-driver brakes hard while moving away > but doesn't do anything analogous to a human driver swerving. If a squirrel > or dog darts out, the car brakes hard but doesn't swerve to miss. > > This feature introduces new challenges and possibly dangers. We humans look > through the car ahead of us, perhaps without even being aware we are doing > it. If the car in front of us has a clear road in front of it, that car can > sometimes cause an accident by suddenly braking hard. I am told some > insurance company scammers do this, since it is the fault of the guy in > back. > Collision avoidance systems are now appearing in ordinary cars. Both forward collision avoidance using braking and side collision avoidance using steering. Surely Google will be using similar systems? BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Jun 25 23:59:05 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 18:59:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day Message-ID: "I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. I have your review before me. In a moment it will be behind me!" Max Reger -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sun Jun 26 05:26:15 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 25 Jun 2016 22:26:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Autonomous car ethics In-Reply-To: <40c8c61b-fd36-8127-340f-49aac5675141@mydruthers.com> References: <40c8c61b-fd36-8127-340f-49aac5675141@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 10:16 AM, Chris Hibbert wrote: > I'd be willing to bet that there aren't *any* incidents in the training > database that Google's cars have collected from millions of miles of > driving that show a situation in which the driver has to choose between > injuring or killing the occupants and injuring or killing anyone outside > the car. In addition, I'll add in all the miles driven by anyone on this > list, and claim that it's really unlikely that any of *you* have > encountered such a situation either. If drivers drive at sane speeds on > roads that are navigable and have decent traction, you can slow down early > enough that you won't come across such a situation. > While this isn't technically a counterexample since she's not on this list, my mother encountered such a situation once. Suffice it to say, certain individuals were acting in a VERY unsafe manner, and the only way to avoid hitting (and thus injuring, possibly killing) them was to swerve her car into something that would decelerate her car fast enough to deploy airbags and injure her. She chose the latter. (I saw the bruises, so I can confirm that injury happened.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Sun Jun 26 12:54:58 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 14:54:58 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Autonomous car ethics In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The problem with much of proactive AI ethics discussion is that there has to be an agreement on what level of technology we are talking about. Things often get confused when people assume different levels and then "waste time" by talking about something that is on the wrong level (both too high and too low). A car that senses intentions/situations like Mike's example seems theoretically doable - we can imagine a human driver doing something heroic to save others. It also requires a level of human understanding, common sense, and reliability that is pretty far ahead: by that point, we have bigger problems with powerful AI than the morality of cars. The real issue is if we want cars that act as moral agents to this degree: should the car try to enforce some common sense morality (let alone a more specific morality)? It seems that we can agree cars should act to avoid causing damage, but it is less clear they should drive criminals straight to the police station if they figure out they are being used as a getaway car. I have often argued that we may want to ensure that our technology has loyalties to *us* individual humans rather than to some abstract society or state, since otherwise we become trapped by it. But the ethical issue is on the tech deployment side, not so much on the rules and designs for the machines. On 2016-06-24 14:00, Mike Dougherty wrote: > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 6:16 PM, BillK wrote: >> Should a self-driving car kill its passengers for the greater good ? > Oh, the many ways that can be exploited. > > Imagine a passenger gets into the car with a machine gun and a bomb > vest (or some equally absurd situation) ... > > Can we expect the car to drive off the cliff "for the greater good" ? > Of course the guy is a terrorist, and of course the car is equipped > with enough intention-sensors to know it. > (yes, intention-sensors: because intelligence is effectively > prediction and anticipation, so AI is about reliably guessing the > future from clues available in the present) > > idk, I feel like discussing 'ethics' for cars is taking the > conversation down a literal wrong road. -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Jun 26 19:19:45 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 12:19:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 4:59 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > "I am sitting in the smallest room of my house. I have your review before me. In a moment it will be behind me!" > > Max Reger Good comeback, though, from what I've listened to of Reger's music, I've the impression I might have agreed with the review. :) Regards, Dan Sample my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Sun Jun 26 12:47:28 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 14:47:28 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Autonomous car ethics In-Reply-To: <40c8c61b-fd36-8127-340f-49aac5675141@mydruthers.com> References: <40c8c61b-fd36-8127-340f-49aac5675141@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: <775fd25d-7b90-01e4-1915-4c60799cddda@aleph.se> On 2016-06-25 19:16, Chris Hibbert wrote: > > Should a self-driving car kill its passengers for the greater good ? > > for instance, by swerving into a wall to avoid hitting a large number > > of pedestrians? > > This is entirely an academic philosophy question, and not at all a > question that needs to be resolved before self-driving cars should be > put on the road. Yup. I often end up having to explain to engineers that they mainly need to think about this kind of ethics if their safety engineering is too bad. There has to be an ethical decision (or non-decision) when all safety has failed and bad things will happen, but the importance of ethics is to explain to the inevitable court case why the code looks like it does. Trolley cases happen in real traffic and need to be resolved, but they are rare enough that they are not show-stoppers for autonomous cars. The real issue will be things like how they handle rain and snow, or a packed inner city. But long before that they will take over in mines and factory facilities. (I am just back from an AI meeting hosted by a big German car manufacturer. Go figure.) -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Jun 27 00:27:47 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 20:27:47 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Critical take on The Age of Em In-Reply-To: References: <872591BD-C19F-494C-8249-AC92B1B08B19@gmail.com> <53947B0E-67C0-4282-959A-06525952316F@gmu.edu> <78E77BF0-FE0C-47DD-97BC-64D13018E2CB@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 5:33 AM, Robin D Hanson wrote: ?> ? > You don?t know that human brains are any more modular than is typical > software. > ?True.? > ?> ? > You don?t know that it only embodies a small number of principles, without > masses of other implementation details also required for it work. > But we do know from the size of the genome so that mass of those other implementation details can't be significantly larger than what software engineers are already accustomed to. Of course because the code was nor written by a human being it could still be hard for them to figure out why it works, but as long as they know it does work perhaps they don't need to know why to reverse engineer it. ?> ? > And you don?t know that the many different parts of the brain are all > written in the same ?language?. > ?Language might not be the right word but I think there is some reason to believe there is a common architecture throughout mammalian brains. In the April 20 2000 issue of the journal Nature Mriganka Sur ? reports that he ?connected the nerves from the eyes of newborn ferret ?s? ?to the part of the brain normally used to process hearing, and the animals grew into adults that saw normally. So although different parts of the brain process different types of information the various regions can't be very specialized. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Jun 27 05:44:35 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 22:44:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Autonomous car ethics In-Reply-To: <775fd25d-7b90-01e4-1915-4c60799cddda@aleph.se> References: <40c8c61b-fd36-8127-340f-49aac5675141@mydruthers.com> <775fd25d-7b90-01e4-1915-4c60799cddda@aleph.se> Message-ID: <00c901d1d036$fd8b47f0$f8a1d7d0$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of Anders Subject: Re: [ExI] Autonomous car ethics On 2016-06-25 19:16, Chris Hibbert wrote: > > Should a self-driving car kill its passengers for the greater good ? > > for instance, by swerving into a wall to avoid hitting a large > > number of pedestrians?... >...Yup. I often end up having to explain to engineers that they mainly need to think about this kind of ethics if their safety engineering is too bad. ... (I am just back from an AI meeting hosted by a big German car manufacturer. Go figure.) -- Dr Anders Sandberg Sure, but before we get to the ethics, a more mundane engineering task remains. Consider the rule of thumb you may have heard in Driver's Ed in high school: leave a car length following distance for each ten miles an hour. However... the stopping distance increases as the square of the velocity. The traditional advice suggests adding distance linearly. Hmmm... OK sure, but no worries: the car in front of you is going about the same speed you are, so she would be slowing down as you are. Except... when there is a pileup or something really bad has happened and the car in front of you stops instantly. This is how pileups happen which can involve hundreds of cars. So... we look through the car in front of us, and slow when we see up ahead something bad is happening. But what if you cannot see through the car in front? What if it is a big van or something? Then if there is a pileup, you don't see it; if that van slams into that car pile, you run into the van. Reason I bring it up: the self-driving cars cannot see through any car. Every car to the self-driver is a big opaque hulk. So... the following distance for every self-driver increases as the square of the velocity, so it can stop in time if the car ahead of it slams into a big immobile object. This could create a problem. On a crowded freeway, if the self-driver leaves that much space, proles will be constantly diving into it. So the self-driver will need to react by slowing down. This will encourage proles behind the self-driver to dodge around it and swerve back in ahead, causing the self-driver to drop back even harder. Picture that in your mind and think it over. spike From hkeithhenson at gmail.com Mon Jun 27 06:55:16 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Sun, 26 Jun 2016 23:55:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] circumcision again Message-ID: Look what I found http://sciencenordic.com/study-links-autism-circumcision Keith From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Jun 27 12:39:33 2016 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 08:39:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Autonomous car ethics In-Reply-To: <00c901d1d036$fd8b47f0$f8a1d7d0$@att.net> References: <40c8c61b-fd36-8127-340f-49aac5675141@mydruthers.com> <775fd25d-7b90-01e4-1915-4c60799cddda@aleph.se> <00c901d1d036$fd8b47f0$f8a1d7d0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Jun 27, 2016 at 1:44 AM, spike wrote: > Reason I bring it up: the self-driving cars cannot see through any car. > Every car to the self-driver is a big opaque hulk. So... the following > distance for every self-driver increases as the square of the velocity, so > it can stop in time if the car ahead of it slams into a big immobile object. > > This could create a problem. On a crowded freeway, if the self-driver > leaves that much space, proles will be constantly diving into it. So the > self-driver will need to react by slowing down. This will encourage proles > behind the self-driver to dodge around it and swerve back in ahead, causing > the self-driver to drop back even harder. Picture that in your mind and > think it over. Don't you expect these cars to talk to each other? They should also be communicating with the road itself. In the same way your gps-enabled route-finder knows about the construction-related slowdowns and accidents 10 miles ahead, the self-driving car can "see through" not only the car ahead but the entire route. I also expect the human-driven cars will be communicating to the self-drivers. If you've looked at the reports that the "good driver" insurance application is tracking, you'll see they have profiled the kind of driver (either over several sessions or since the car started) and this profile will likely be shared with the traffic network (central and peer-to-peer) Also, the kind of aggressive driving you are picturing will be immediately/continuously reported via this network. In a world where self-driving cars are capable of transporting proles with trouble following traffic regulations, how many strikes do you think it'll take before your license/driving privilege is revoked? From giulio at gmail.com Mon Jun 27 13:55:04 2016 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 15:55:04 +0200 Subject: [ExI] =?utf-8?q?The_Age_of_Em_=E2=80=93_Robin_Hanson_in_Second_Li?= =?utf-8?q?fe=2C_Tomorrow_=28Sunday_June_26=29?= In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: VIDEO - Robin Hanson presented his new book ?The Age of Em: Work, Love and Life when Robots Rule the Earth? at the Turing Church meeting in Second Life on Sunday, June 26. The presentation was followed by a discussion. Watch the video, look at the slides, and feel free to comment and ask questions: Robin said he will answer questions posted here... http://turingchurch.com/2016/06/27/video-robin-hanson-in-second-life-on-the-age-of-em/ On Sat, Jun 25, 2016 at 5:04 PM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > The Age of Em ? Robin Hanson in Second Life, Sunday June 26 > http://turingchurch.com/2016/06/25/the-age-of-em-robin-hanson-in-second-life-sunday-june-26/ > > Robin Hanson will present his new book ?The Age of Em: Work, Love and Life > when Robots Rule the Earth? at the next Turing Church meeting in Second Life > on Sunday, June 26. The presentation will be followed by a discussion, and > everyone will be able to ask questions... > > A book presentation in Second Life is a natural fit for ?The Age of Em.? > According to Robin, the ?ems? (uploaded humans running on suitable computing > hardware) that will inherit the Earth will live most of their life as pure > software in virtual reality... Second Life, primitive as it is compared to > future standards, is a good mental model for the virtual reality habitats of > future ems... Perhaps our collective mind designed Second Life to start > experimenting with our future habitats. From giulio at gmail.com Mon Jun 27 15:39:07 2016 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Mon, 27 Jun 2016 17:39:07 +0200 Subject: [ExI] The Sacred Road to the Stars Message-ID: My essay ?The Sacred Road to the Stars,? which is also a section of my forthcoming book, has been published on The Transfigurist, the online magazine of the Mormon Transhumanist Association (MTA). I argue that we should consider our first timid steps into outer space as the beginning of our journey on the sacred road to the stars. http://turingchurch.com/2016/06/27/the-sacred-road-to-the-stars/ From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jun 28 13:41:04 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 08:41:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] ldl Message-ID: http://www.peoplespharmacy.com/2016/06/27/is-bad-ldl-cholesterol-good-for-older-people/?utm_source=The+People%27s+Pharmacy+Newsletter&utm_campaign=cf227a8d26-This-Week-Email+6%2F28%2F16&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_7300006d3c-cf227a8d26-214968749&ct=t(This_Week_6_28_16)&mc_cid=cf227a8d26&mc_eid=b9c6f5005a Worth a look bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Jun 28 18:27:55 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 13:27:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] study Message-ID: Our results suggest why libertarians do not feel fully at home in either of the major American political parties. Consistent with our prediction, libertarians were relatively low on all five foundations. Libertarians share with liberals, a distaste for the morality of ingroup, authority, and purity, characteristic of social conservatives, particularly those on the religious right [43] . Like liberals, libertarians can be said to have a two-foundation morality, prioritizing harm and fairness above the other three foundations. But libertarians share with conservatives their moderate scores on these two foundations. They are therefore likely to be less responsive than liberals to moral appeals from groups who claim to be victimized, oppressed, or treated unfairly. Libertarianism is clearly not just a point on the liberal-conservative continuum; libertarians have a unique pattern of moral concerns, with relatively low reliance on all five foundations. full study: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0042366#abstract0 YourMorals.org Jonathan Haidt's website incl. the questionnaire that evaluates your morality on several dimensions Does this square with your libertarianism? Comments? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Jun 28 20:47:18 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 28 Jun 2016 13:47:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] This perfect day... Message-ID: http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/roots-of-unity/49-ways-to-celebrate-the-most-perfect-day-of-the-year/?WT.mc_id=SA_TW_MATH_BLOG A little fun with numbers, especially Mersenne primes. Regards, Dan Sample my latest Kindle book, "The Late Mr. Gurlitt," at: http://mybook.to/Gurlitt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Jun 29 14:09:48 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:09:48 -0400 Subject: [ExI] study In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 2:27 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?> ? > Does this square with your libertarianism? > > ? I am not a libertarian, for many decades I thought I was one but for many decades I also thought libertarians were in favor of free speech and free trade and paying your debts and capitalism ? and abortion rights? , and I thought libertarians were opposed to state sponsored torture and of torture just for the sake of torture. But very recently I discovered I was mistaken about all of that. John K Clark > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Jun 30 15:40:35 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 08:40:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] imin Message-ID: <001601d1d2e5$bf55a5a0$3e00f0e0$@att.net> I am waaaaay in: https://twitter.com/GovGaryJohnson/status/748320273754165249 You in? Go ahead, hit it. It isn't spam. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 30 17:27:06 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 12:27:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] book Message-ID: The Big Fat Surprise, by Nina Teicholz Simply smashes the low fat, low LDL hypothesis. And along with it, the statin hypothesis. (There is an entire book, not this one, devoted to statins and how they create cognitive decline. I would not touch them if my cholesterol was 400.) This book shows just how powerful Congress is, the American Heart Association is, the powerful influence of companies trying to promote grains etc. instead of eggs, meat, and dairy. Simply amazing. I take it back: it's just capitalism at work. They want people to buy their products and so bias enters. Billions of dollars, some for Congressmen, sways a lot of people. No money for researchers trying to do unbiased work. Just a huge game inflicting people with obesity, diabetes, and early death. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Jun 30 18:50:55 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:50:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:27 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > The Big Fat Surprise, by Nina Teicholz > > Simply smashes the low fat, low LDL hypothesis. And along with it, the > statin hypothesis. > ### Anything that "smashes" the statin hypothesis is complete baloney. Statins lower all-cause mortality in specified populations in multiple large randomized placebo-controlled trials. This is the end of story. There is no "statin hypothesis", there are only statin facts. -------- > > This book shows just how powerful Congress is, the American Heart > Association is, the powerful influence of companies trying to promote > grains etc. instead of eggs, meat, and dairy. Simply amazing. > ### Funny how vegans write 400 page books describing the powerful and malign influence of meat, eggs and dairy producers. And it's all bunk. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 30 19:20:44 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 14:20:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Funny how you keep judging something without reading it. It has no relationship whatsoever to vegetarianism. Let's look at facts, not your impenetrable opinions. bill w On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:50 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:27 PM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> The Big Fat Surprise, by Nina Teicholz >> >> Simply smashes the low fat, low LDL hypothesis. And along with it, the >> statin hypothesis. >> > > ### Anything that "smashes" the statin hypothesis is complete baloney. > Statins lower all-cause mortality in specified populations in multiple > large randomized placebo-controlled trials. This is the end of story. There > is no "statin hypothesis", there are only statin facts. > -------- > >> >> This book shows just how powerful Congress is, the American Heart >> Association is, the powerful influence of companies trying to promote >> grains etc. instead of eggs, meat, and dairy. Simply amazing. >> > > ### Funny how vegans write 400 page books describing the powerful and > malign influence of meat, eggs and dairy producers. > > And it's all bunk. > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Jun 30 19:29:04 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:29:04 -0400 Subject: [ExI] book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 1:27 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > The Big Fat Surprise, by Nina Teicholz > > Simply smashes the low fat, low LDL hypothesis. And along with it, the > statin hypothesis. > ### Anything that "smashes" the statin hypothesis is complete baloney. Statins lower all-cause mortality in specified populations in multiple large randomized placebo-controlled trials. This is the end of story. There is no "statin hypothesis", there are only statin facts. -------- > > This book shows just how powerful Congress is, the American Heart > Association is, the powerful influence of companies trying to promote > grains etc. instead of eggs, meat, and dairy. Simply amazing. > ### Funny how vegans write 400 page books describing the powerful and malign influence of meat, eggs and dairy producers. And it's all bunk. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Thu Jun 30 19:45:43 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 15:45:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:20 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Funny how you keep judging something without reading it. It has no > relationship whatsoever to vegetarianism. Let's look at facts, not your > impenetrable opinions. bill w > > ### ???? Conspiracy theories are common and coming from all ideological directions. If you say a book makes patently ridiculous claims (statin hypothesis is smashed), I don't need to read it to judge it. I trust your report about the book, and I trust my knowledge of primary sources. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From interzone at gmail.com Thu Jun 23 21:00:06 2016 From: interzone at gmail.com (Dylan Distasio) Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2016 17:00:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] electronics help! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bill- I'm assuming your stereo is not a newer AV receiver that typically has HDMI inputs these days. If the answer is no, there are HDMI to component adapters (realizing you don't care about the component video for music, but it will give you RCA style stereo outputs that will go into your sound system). You may end up paying more than you did for the player though (guessing). Radioshack has this one: https://www.radioshack.com/products/radioshack-hdmi-to-component-converter?variant=5717010885 Monoprice.com is another good resource and is having a sale in general right now, so would probably be worth a look. Amazon also sells them. -Dylan On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:47 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Bought an LG DVD player, advertised as a CD player, on eBay. Refurbished. > > So I got it today and the only connection in the back is HDMI out to TV. > > Now - is there any way to connect this to my stereo receiver? Radio > Shack a far drive, or I'd ask them. > > Thanks! > > bill w > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 30 22:42:55 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 17:42:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] book In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 2:45 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Thu, Jun 30, 2016 at 3:20 PM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > > >> Funny how you keep judging something without reading it. It has no >> relationship whatsoever to vegetarianism. Let's look at facts, not your >> impenetrable opinions. bill w >> >> ### ???? Conspiracy theories are common and coming from all ideological > directions. > > If you say a book makes patently ridiculous claims (statin hypothesis is > smashed), I don't need to read it to judge it. I trust your report about > the book, and I trust my knowledge of primary sources. > > ?Then you will live in ignorance. bill w? > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Jun 30 22:44:07 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 17:44:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] electronics help! In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks. I found the adaptors on eBay for under $3 a piece. bill w On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:00 PM, Dylan Distasio wrote: > Bill- > > I'm assuming your stereo is not a newer AV receiver that typically has > HDMI inputs these days. If the answer is no, there are HDMI to component > adapters (realizing you don't care about the component video for music, but > it will give you RCA style stereo outputs that will go into your sound > system). You may end up paying more than you did for the player though > (guessing). > > Radioshack has this one: > > https://www.radioshack.com/products/radioshack-hdmi-to-component-converter?variant=5717010885 > > Monoprice.com is another good resource and is having a sale in general > right now, so would probably be worth a look. Amazon also sells them. > > -Dylan > > On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 4:47 PM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Bought an LG DVD player, advertised as a CD player, on eBay. Refurbished. >> >> So I got it today and the only connection in the back is HDMI out to TV. >> >> Now - is there any way to connect this to my stereo receiver? Radio >> Shack a far drive, or I'd ask them. >> >> Thanks! >> >> bill w >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Thu Jun 30 22:33:40 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 23:33:40 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Blue improved memory? Message-ID: Interesting use of a classic drug/stain: memory enhancer. http://pubs.rsna.org/doi/10.1148/radiol.2016152893 https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160628072028.htm By no means a radical improvement, but it is an old rather safe drug with an amusing side effect (blue pee). > Methylene blue is a memory-enhancing drug in animals and humans after > a single dose in the low-dose range of 0.5?4 mg/kg, but it has > opposite effects at doses greater than 10 mg/kg and displays a > hormetic dose response (15 > ). Still, not a good idea to combine with SSRIs, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2078225/ -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Jun 30 22:55:47 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 30 Jun 2016 23:55:47 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Man dies while driven by Tesla Autopilot Message-ID: First fatality of robot cars. Quote: Tesla is a ?supervised? system where the driver is required to agree they are monitoring the system and will take control in the event of any problem. A core issue is that the autopilot works too well, and I have seen reports from many Tesla drivers of them trusting it far more than they should. The autopilot is fine if used as Tesla directs, but the better it gets, the more it encourages people to over-trust it. ----------- BillK