From spike66 at att.net Wed Mar 2 17:34:35 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 09:34:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] privacy again Message-ID: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> There is a big case in the US courts about a newscaster who had a nude video taken of her by a stalker who removed the peephole in the door. The video made it to the internet. She claims damages against the hotel chain, not against the guy who took the video. This whole thing brings up a number of questions. Why does she think her exposed nudity is really worth 75 million bucks? What if she had been an ordinary person like you and me: is our nudity worth 75 million, or does it need to be scaled somehow? How? Is there some kind of universal hotness scale? Do hotties get more if they are recorded nude than coldies or tepidies? How much more? Can a person be so bone-deep ugly that such a video is worth zero point nada? Is the payout proportional to the number of internet hits? Why? As we brought up a decade ago: it would be eeeeeasy easy to hide a video device in a hotel room, almost completely without risk. It could be set up to receive a call and turn on at any time, and Skype the video to any remote receiver, with very little risk of getting caught and not much cost really. So are we now saying the hotel chain is responsible for find that? In the meantime, are we cool with it that all assured privacy in any public place, any public restroom and any hotel room is now gone? Could we not argue that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy there? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Mar 2 18:13:05 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 10:13:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 2, 2016 9:49 AM, "spike" wrote: > Why does she think her exposed nudity is really worth 75 million bucks? Her lawyers do. More to the point, they may have thought that's what they could shake down the hotel for, to prevent the scandal. Actual claims of "ruined career" and "emotional distress" lead to numbers pulled out of thin air, not any actual justification that you or I would recognize as such were we the judge or jurors in the case. (Which would be why you and I would never be selected as jurors for this case, even if it was around here and a jury trial. > So are we now saying the hotel chain is responsible for find that? The lawyers are, but given the facts you have laid out, it seems pretty clear the liability is entirely on the one who messed with the door and took the video. But that person likely does not have $75M. OTOH, that may be jail time worthy. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Wed Mar 2 22:47:20 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:47:20 +0100 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> Message-ID: <56D76D78.7000309@aleph.se> On 2016-03-02 18:34, spike wrote: > > Why does she think her exposed nudity is really worth 75 million bucks? > A career can be quite valuable. Top performers can produce 10-300 times the value of an average perfomer to a company (and would hence expect to get at least a fraction of that value as salary), and this is especially true for person-linked jobs like media careers. If somebody wrecks a career that might actually be worth a few million as 45-Year Earnings and the careerist was a top performer, then 75 million might make sense. Also, punitive damages might show up in torts. But the real game here is an out-of-court settlement with the hotel. The hotel has more to lose in terms of reputation (and hence money) than the nude newscaster, so it is rational to pay up a nice settlement to make things go away. (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just married to one. And he is working in a non-US jurisdiction. I am considering this from an armchair. My views are not valid in Idaho.) > > As we brought up a decade ago: it would be eeeeeasy easy to hide a > video device in a hotel room, almost completely without risk. It > could be set up to receive a call and turn on at any time, and Skype > the video to any remote receiver, with very little risk of getting > caught and not much cost really. So are we now saying the hotel chain > is responsible for find that? In the meantime, are we cool with it > that all assured privacy in any public place, any public restroom and > any hotel room is > > now gone? Could we not argue that there is no reasonable expectation > of privacy there? > http://lifehacker.com/detect-and-disable-an-airbnbs-hidden-wi-fi-cameras-with-1752817084 "Reasonable expectation of privacy" is not the same thing as being bug/drone/spyware free. The first is a legal term, the second is objective state of affairs. The first changes to some extent with technology and culture. But it is likely that US law regards it as applying to hotel rooms with some common sense limitations (hotel staff can in principle enter at any time, etc.) In the long run it might be both impossible to prevent and easy to do for so many people that reasonable expectation may not apply. The issue is whether the hotel was negligent in not preventing the spying in the present. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From lubkin at unreasonable.com Wed Mar 2 22:57:20 2016 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 17:57:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Public-key encryption honored Message-ID: <201603022334.u22NYJqh028613@ziaspace.com> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/technology/cryptography-pioneers-to-win-turing-award.html Cryptography Pioneers Win Turing Award http://amturing.acm.org/ Cryptography Pioneers Receive 2015 ACM A.M. Turing Award Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman won the 2015 Turing Award. The Turing, often called the Nobel Prize of Computer Science, is a big deal. The honorees are the best we have. Folks like John McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Vint Cerf, Donald Knuth, and Richard Hamming. And the prize is now a million dollars. Without doubt, Diffie and Hellman deserve this recognition. Public-key encryption is a big deal and we'll be finding new uses for it for decades. But there are two curiosities about the awarding. First, it was already given in 2002 to Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman for work that relied on Diffie and Hellman. Logically, RSA should have gotten it after Diffie-Hellman. Second, in many minds they're a trio?Diffie, Hellman, and extropian Ralph Merkle. The Computer History Museum named the three of them together as fellows, for their work with each other. Rudely, the photo that the New York Times used was actually of the three of them; they cropped Ralph out. In the earlier awarding of the Kanellakis Theory and Practice Award in 1996, all six public-key pioneers were named. http://awards.acm.org/kanellakis/year.cfm It doesn't make up for losing the prestige and a third of a million dollars, but I say ye Ralph Merkle! -- David. From tara at taramayastales.com Wed Mar 2 20:13:19 2016 From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya) Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:13:19 -0800 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> Message-ID: The person who took the video should be found and sent to prison, not merely sued. But the amount of money involved is not based on ?hotness? ?it?s based on what would be a deterrent. A lot of money can be made from such videos, and it that means that if the punishment isn?t severe, nothing will be done to stop it. A nude video being taken is a huge violation. It?s a form of sexual assault. It?s not some funny little prank. Tara Maya > On Mar 2, 2016, at 9:34 AM, spike wrote: > > > > There is a big case in the US courts about a newscaster who had a nude video taken of her by a stalker who removed the peephole in the door. The video made it to the internet. She claims damages against the hotel chain, not against the guy who took the video. > > This whole thing brings up a number of questions. > > Why does she think her exposed nudity is really worth 75 million bucks? > > What if she had been an ordinary person like you and me: is our nudity worth 75 million, or does it need to be scaled somehow? > > How? > Is there some kind of universal hotness scale? > Do hotties get more if they are recorded nude than coldies or tepidies? > How much more? > Can a person be so bone-deep ugly that such a video is worth zero point nada? > Is the payout proportional to the number of internet hits? > Why? > > As we brought up a decade ago: it would be eeeeeasy easy to hide a video device in a hotel room, almost completely without risk. It could be set up to receive a call and turn on at any time, and Skype the video to any remote receiver, with very little risk of getting caught and not much cost really. So are we now saying the hotel chain is responsible for find that? In the meantime, are we cool with it that all assured privacy in any public place, any public restroom and any hotel room is > now gone? Could we not argue that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy there? > > spike > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat Tara Maya Blog | Twitter | Facebook | Amazon | Goodreads -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rolandodegilead at gmail.com Thu Mar 3 10:25:29 2016 From: rolandodegilead at gmail.com (=?UTF-8?Q?Eugenio_Mart=C3=ADnez?=) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 11:25:29 +0100 Subject: [ExI] [PRIV] Re: disgusted with Windows In-Reply-To: <20160229225146.GA5258@tau1.ceti.pl> References: <20160229151107.GA5279@tau1.ceti.pl> <20160229225146.GA5258@tau1.ceti.pl> Message-ID: If you got tired of Windows 10 just because a program was not compatible with it or there was some bugs or things like that, you are going back to Windows in less than a week. On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 01:08:47PM -0600, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Update: uninstalled Norton 360, took it home, locked up bad. > > Am trying to uninstall 10 and go back to Windows 7. Am determined not to > > lose my Toshiba 17" laptop because of a software conflict, but just in > > case..... > > > > Bought an Acer 15.6"monitor Chromebook for $250. We'll see. > > Good - from what I have gathered so far, this may indeed be best > option for you. Once you get used to it and feel like it, perhaps you > would be willing to share your thoughts? > > -- > Regards, > Tomasz Rola > > -- > ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** > ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** > ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** > ** ** > ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -- OLVIDATE.DE Tatachan.com -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Mar 3 14:57:45 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 14:57:45 +0000 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: <56D76D78.7000309@aleph.se> References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> <56D76D78.7000309@aleph.se> Message-ID: On 2 March 2016 at 22:47, Anders Sandberg wrote: > A career can be quite valuable. Top performers can produce 10-300 times the > value of an average performer to a company (and would hence expect to get at > least a fraction of that value as salary), and this is especially true for > person-linked jobs like media careers. If somebody wrecks a career that > might actually be worth a few million as 45-Year Earnings and the careerist > was a top performer, then 75 million might make sense. > > In the context of nude videos, I'm not sure that 'top performers' is really an appropriate phrase to use. :) I suspect this is a cunning ploy by spike to get millions when his nude video hits the internet. Of course it would have to be 'full-frontal', as in the side view he almost disappears. Though thinking it over, perhaps spike could get more millions if he promises to *not* put his nude video on the net. :) BillK From anders at aleph.se Thu Mar 3 15:23:10 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:23:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> Message-ID: <56D856DE.3010600@aleph.se> On 2016-03-02 21:13, Tara Maya wrote: > > A nude video being taken is a huge violation. It?s a form of sexual > assault. It?s not some funny little prank. The problem is that it depends on who it is. BillK is likely entirely OK in joking about a hypothetical Spike video, while to others a nude video can indeed be a sexual assault and is no joking matter at all. A lot of it depends on whether one belongs to a vulnerable group, or how the video is spread. It seems that the key issues is (1) a nude video means the intimate sphere has been made public, having a chilling effect on it even when there is no risk of outside peeking (this can be made even worse by outsider malicious comments - they can put their barbs more closely to the skin, so to say), and (2) the lack of control over the released information - integrity is about being able to control your information, and once it is out there you cannot do much to regain it in that domain. The problem with these is that neither can be remedied well with technology or law. Adding astronomical fines will not deter people if they think they can get away with it. Many intimate videos are made for consumption inside a relationship, but leak out anyway. "A right to be forgotten" is complicated to achieve outside a social context. One day we may build the cryptographic memory-DRM society of the Oubliette in "A Quantum Thief". But until then it will be hard to do something general and effective. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Mar 3 16:57:37 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:57:37 -0600 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: <56D856DE.3010600@aleph.se> References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> <56D856DE.3010600@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 2016-03-02 21:13, Tara Maya wrote: > > > A nude video being taken is a huge violation. It?s a form of sexual > assault. It?s not some funny little prank. > > > The problem is that it depends on who it is. BillK is likely entirely OK > in joking about a hypothetical Spike video, while to others a nude video > can indeed be a sexual assault and is no joking matter at all. A lot of it > depends on whether one belongs to a vulnerable group, or how the video is > spread. > > It seems that the key issues is (1) a nude video means the intimate sphere > has been made public, having a chilling effect on it even when there is no > risk of outside peeking (this can be made even worse by outsider malicious > comments - they can put their barbs more closely to the skin, so to say), > and (2) the lack of control over the released information - integrity is > about being able to control your information, and once it is out there you > cannot do much to regain it in that domain. > > The problem with these is that neither can be remedied well with > technology or law. Adding astronomical fines will not deter people if they > think they can get away with it. Many intimate videos are made for > consumption inside a relationship, but leak out anyway. "A right to be > forgotten" is complicated to achieve outside a social context. > > One day we may build the cryptographic memory-DRM society of the Oubliette > in "A Quantum Thief". But until then it will be hard to do something > general and effective. > > ?I read where sexting is the 'in' thing to do in high school and if you don't, you're just out of the > > ?'in' group. I don't know that we will ever get used to a lot less privacy? ?but if everyone who had their nudity exposed on the net by some ex boy friend sued, the courts would have no room for any other cases. Clearly many or even most of these are without permission of any kind, which is hard to prove. And young teens, perhaps the most vulnerable group, are the most exposed to this. Teens of all sexes will do dumb things to conform to group norms and it's impossible to stop. For every complaint about it, a thousand cases go unnoticed - or more. In the case that started this chat, the lawyers will go after the deep pockets (hotel) but I agree with Tara that the people who removed the device and took the photos should be charged with something: You could make a case for assault. bill w > ? > > 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 Thu Mar 3 16:46:16 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:46:16 -0800 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> <56D76D78.7000309@aleph.se> Message-ID: <002401d1756c$34fd2c60$9ef78520$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 6:58 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again On 2 March 2016 at 22:47, Anders Sandberg wrote: >>... A career can be quite valuable. Top performers can produce 10-300 > times the value of an average performer to a company ... >...In the context of nude videos, I'm not sure that 'top performers' is really an appropriate phrase to use. :) {8^D Ja. The ironic part of it is that the penalty to the hotel chain for (somehow) allowing or facilitating the criminal act is proportional to the salary potential of the victim. Think of all those topless photos of Aboriginal people National Geographic published in the 1950s. Good chance the models had no idea what they were signing up for. I know, that's different of course. >...I suspect this is a cunning ploy by spike to get millions when his nude video hits the internet... Well now that is an idea. >...Of course it would have to be 'full-frontal', as in the side view he almost disappears... There is that. >...Though thinking it over, perhaps spike could get more millions if he promises to *not* put his nude video on the net. :) BillK {8^D This leads back to the original observation in a way. Cases like these can only become far more common as more proles discover that video devices can be hidden where they will never be discovered, activated by a phone call, video collected by Skype, then the low-cost device abandoned afterward. The potential damage is proportional somehow to the value of the video, which is proportional to the hotness of the victim. Now these kinds of court cases become a beauty contest. BillK, you hit it right on: if I were to bring a similar suit, it would be laughed out of court, along with insults. I can just imagine what the judge would say. Imagine this same victim except aged 40 yrs. Imagine this same victim, same crime except that she has had nude photos made professionally but not published. Same victim, same crime, victim is a news producer rather than a sports desk anchor. spike From anders at aleph.se Thu Mar 3 21:50:37 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 22:50:37 +0100 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: <002401d1756c$34fd2c60$9ef78520$@att.net> References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> <56D76D78.7000309@aleph.se> <002401d1756c$34fd2c60$9ef78520$@att.net> Message-ID: <56D8B1AD.4020903@aleph.se> On 2016-03-03 17:46, spike wrote: > This leads back to the original observation in a way. Cases like these > can only become far more common as more proles discover that video > devices can be hidden where they will never be discovered, activated > by a phone call, video collected by Skype, then the low-cost device > abandoned afterward. The potential damage is proportional somehow to > the value of the video, which is proportional to the hotness of the > victim. Now these kinds of court cases become a beauty contest. Not exactly. It is a social capital contest. Beauty helps give you social capital, ugliness reduces it; in fact, lookism is a stronger factor than racism and sexism in some studies. But the not-so-beautiful VIP who gets harmed will be less likely to be told "deal with it" than the nobody. This is of course true for all crimes. Social status, ability to speak for oneself, or to invoke a support network, has always been protective against being accused, suspected or sentenced for most crimes. Not perfectly, of course, and there are other reasons people of low SES are overrepresented in courtrooms too. Conversely, when trying to get the legal system to listen the above factors really help. Crimes against integrity are bad even for slum-dwellers. In fact, they are often worse for people with few resources since their reputations and images are all they have. But they are less likely to prevail in court, or even seek legal help because of less resources and trust. Meanwhile high social capital people are more likely to try and to get remedies. So, yes, this is a kind of beauty contest. An unfair one, since it is involuntary and people cannot decide if to participate. But also very hard to fix, since whatever the system is there tends to be a worst off group (add affirmative action, and you get a different set; make clear rules not bound by personal liking, and the people who are bad with using such rules will be worst off). -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Thu Mar 3 22:23:58 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 23:23:58 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Cognitive enhancement and health Message-ID: <56D8B97E.9080400@aleph.se> Nice to see neuroenhancement covered in Nature this week. http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S2a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S6a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S4a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S10a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S12a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S14a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S18a.html http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S9a.html Still not using transhumanist as a wholly positive word, but it is used. Incidentally, Slate Star Codex has its nootropics survey results up: http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/03/01/2016-nootropics-survey-results/ -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From sjv2006 at gmail.com Fri Mar 4 04:04:00 2016 From: sjv2006 at gmail.com (Stephen Van Sickle) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 20:04:00 -0800 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 2, 2016 09:49, "spike" wrote: > There is a big case in the US courts about a newscaster who had a nude video taken of her by a stalker who removed the peephole in the door. Did the miscreant remove the peephole (which can arguable not have been anticipated by the hotel) or did he use a "reverse peephole" such as this: http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Enforcement-Reverse-Peephole-Viewer/dp/B0036VJ3J4 If the later, these are so available and cheap that not installing a peephole with a cover: http://www.amazon.com/Tg3828PH-220-degree-Privacy-Thickness-Polished/dp/B00T415N8A/ref=sr_1_3?s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid=1457064088&sr=1-3&keywords=Door+peephole+cover could well be negligence. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Mar 4 04:34:54 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 20:34:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> Message-ID: <003301d175cf$33ba1c10$9b2e5430$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Van Sickle Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 8:04 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again On Mar 2, 2016 09:49, "spike" > wrote: > >?There is a big case in the US courts about a newscaster who had a nude video taken of her by a stalker who removed the peephole in the door. >?Did the miscreant remove the peephole (which can arguable not have been anticipated by the hotel) or did he use a "reverse peephole" such as this: http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Enforcement-Reverse-Peephole-Viewer/dp/B0036VJ3J4 If the later, these are so available and cheap that not installing a peephole with a cover: http://www.amazon.com/Tg3828PH-220-degree-Privacy-Thickness-Polished/dp/B00T415N8A/ref=sr_1_3?s=hi &ie=UTF8&qid=1457064088&sr=1-3&keywords=Door+peephole+cover could well be negligence? This is from the court testimony: After hearing Andrews leave, he removed the peephole from her door and went back to his own room, where he used a hacksaw to cut off the threads attached to it. ?I removed the peephole, altered it,? he said. ?I cut off the threads so it was basically a plug and could be put back in.? Later on in the day, Barrett returned to his room and heard the shower on in Andrews? room. ?I went back to the room, and unfortunately for both of us, I could hear that the shower was on in her room when I walked by,? he said. ?I waited until the shower went off. Then I pulled out the plug and waited for the opportunity.? There are a thousand ways something like this can happen. A sleazebag could perhaps use an endoscope underneath the door in those hotels where some adjoining rooms have a pair of doors separating them. I have seen flexible endoscopes smaller in diameter than a pencil that would fit underneath a door. A cell phone could be hidden in ceiling tiles or a smoke detector could be modified: slimeball rents room, switches smoke detector with one containing a cell phone camera, along with plenty of electrical storage capacity, checks out and perhaps records next occupants, later returns and retrieves phony smoke detector, replacing original. Lets a few months go by, emails video to occupant, demands whatever method those Hollywood hospital ransom-demander used, bitcoin, to collect the ransom, no way to catch the sleazy bastard. If the perp is careful and doesn?t leave fingerprints on the smoke detector, the authorities probably couldn?t even figure out whodunit: one hotel room looks like any other, and they might not even be able to determine what hotel was bugged. The bad guy could hide the video device inside the clock by the bed, rent the room, switch the clock, get the video, switch them back later. Or hide the device inside the HVAC vent. Hotels cannot stop this sort of thing. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Fri Mar 4 07:36:56 2016 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 08:36:56 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Alexander Chislenko article on English Wikipedia in danger of deletion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The article has been deleted. Too bad I missed this post and couldn't participate in the Wikipedia discussion. Unfortunately Wikipedia has been colonized by SJWs (in this case, "Scientific Justice Warriors") who want to purge imagination from our spirit. I don't pay much attention to idiots, but Wikipedia is more and more important because Wikipedia pages are often at the top of Google search results. Debating SJWs is boring, but I think we should fight back. On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote: > If you edit Wikipedia and/or have good references that can be used to > improve the article, visit and contribute: > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Chislenko > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Chislenko > > Mike > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Mar 4 18:43:40 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 12:43:40 -0600 Subject: [ExI] chromebook 1st report Message-ID: Bought an Acer Chromebook 15 - 15.6" screen, ssd It's not quite my 17" Toshiba laptop but it's sufficient - and very bright. It's hot - really fast. Boots in 7 seconds and turns off about the same. Web pages fast - maybe one second. I do miss my lighted keyboard, though typing on this is just fine. $250 - makes me think of the many thousands I paid for the first Pentium, (never mind my PCjr) my Apple Powerbook ($4200 - died after the warranty died). I do miss some of my Firefox addons like tree style tab but I have yet to really explore addons for this one. Plugged in the Logitech usb and my rollerball worked right away. Several keys missing: delete, page up and down, function keys, but most replaceable by shortcuts using alt or ctrl So far, so good, or maybe a lot better than good. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From aussiesta at hotmail.com Fri Mar 4 19:03:30 2016 From: aussiesta at hotmail.com (david roman) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 19:03:30 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Alexander Chislenko article on English Wikipedia in danger of deletion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I'm stunned to read the discussion in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Chislenko- One Wikieditor goes as far as writing: Even worse. Hits in google search prove nothing. What we need is references to reliable sources. Google books hit lots of self-published garbage. "Transhumanists" produce floods of bullshit. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:35, 24 February 2016 (UTC) Is this gutter level of discourse common, whenever one engages people outside the Transhumanist movement? I'm just curious, since I'm new at this and would like to be ready. > > The article has been deleted. Too bad I missed this post and couldn't > participate in the Wikipedia discussion. Unfortunately Wikipedia has > been colonized by SJWs (in this case, "Scientific Justice Warriors") > who want to purge imagination from our spirit. I don't pay much > attention to idiots, but Wikipedia is more and more important because > Wikipedia pages are often at the top of Google search results. > Debating SJWs is boring, but I think we should fight back. > > From: extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org > Subject: extropy-chat Digest, Vol 150, Issue 2 > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 18:44:09 +0000 > > Send extropy-chat mailing list submissions to > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > extropy-chat-request at lists.extropy.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > extropy-chat-owner at lists.extropy.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of extropy-chat digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: privacy again (Anders Sandberg) > 2. Public-key encryption honored (David Lubkin) > 3. Re: privacy again (Tara Maya) > 4. Re: [PRIV] Re: disgusted with Windows (Eugenio Mart?nez) > 5. Re: privacy again (BillK) > 6. Re: privacy again (Anders Sandberg) > 7. Re: privacy again (William Flynn Wallace) > 8. Re: privacy again (spike) > 9. Re: privacy again (Anders Sandberg) > 10. Cognitive enhancement and health (Anders Sandberg) > 11. Re: privacy again (Stephen Van Sickle) > 12. Re: privacy again (spike) > 13. Re: Alexander Chislenko article on English Wikipedia in > danger of deletion (Giulio Prisco) > 14. chromebook 1st report (William Flynn Wallace) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 23:47:20 +0100 > From: Anders Sandberg > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again > Message-ID: <56D76D78.7000309 at aleph.se> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed" > > On 2016-03-02 18:34, spike wrote: > > > > Why does she think her exposed nudity is really worth 75 million bucks? > > > A career can be quite valuable. Top performers can produce 10-300 times > the value of an average perfomer to a company (and would hence expect to > get at least a fraction of that value as salary), and this is especially > true for person-linked jobs like media careers. If somebody wrecks a > career that might actually be worth a few million as 45-Year Earnings > and the careerist was a top performer, then 75 million might make sense. > > Also, punitive damages might show up in torts. > > But the real game here is an out-of-court settlement with the hotel. The > hotel has more to lose in terms of reputation (and hence money) than the > nude newscaster, so it is rational to pay up a nice settlement to make > things go away. > > (Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, just married to one. And he is working > in a non-US jurisdiction. I am considering this from an armchair. My > views are not valid in Idaho.) > > > > > As we brought up a decade ago: it would be eeeeeasy easy to hide a > > video device in a hotel room, almost completely without risk. It > > could be set up to receive a call and turn on at any time, and Skype > > the video to any remote receiver, with very little risk of getting > > caught and not much cost really. So are we now saying the hotel chain > > is responsible for find that? In the meantime, are we cool with it > > that all assured privacy in any public place, any public restroom and > > any hotel room is > > > > now gone? Could we not argue that there is no reasonable expectation > > of privacy there? > > > > http://lifehacker.com/detect-and-disable-an-airbnbs-hidden-wi-fi-cameras-with-1752817084 > > "Reasonable expectation of privacy" is not the same thing as being > bug/drone/spyware free. The first is a legal term, the second is > objective state of affairs. The first changes to some extent with > technology and culture. But it is likely that US law regards it as > applying to hotel rooms with some common sense limitations (hotel staff > can in principle enter at any time, etc.) In the long run it might be > both impossible to prevent and easy to do for so many people that > reasonable expectation may not apply. > > The issue is whether the hotel was negligent in not preventing the > spying in the present. > > > -- > Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Oxford University > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Wed, 02 Mar 2016 17:57:20 -0500 > From: David Lubkin > To: Extropy Chat > Subject: [ExI] Public-key encryption honored > Message-ID: <201603022334.u22NYJqh028613 at ziaspace.com> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"; format=flowed > > http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/02/technology/cryptography-pioneers-to-win-turing-award.html > Cryptography Pioneers Win Turing Award > > http://amturing.acm.org/ > Cryptography Pioneers Receive 2015 ACM A.M. Turing Award > > Whitfield Diffie and Martin Hellman won the 2015 > Turing Award. The Turing, often called the Nobel > Prize of Computer Science, is a big deal. The > honorees are the best we have. Folks like John > McCarthy, Marvin Minsky, Vint Cerf, Donald Knuth, > and Richard Hamming. And the prize is now a million dollars. > > Without doubt, Diffie and Hellman deserve this > recognition. Public-key encryption is a big deal > and we'll be finding new uses for it for decades. > But there are two curiosities about the awarding. > > First, it was already given in 2002 to Rivest, > Shamir, and Adleman for work that relied on > Diffie and Hellman. Logically, RSA should have gotten it after Diffie-Hellman. > > Second, in many minds they're a trio?Diffie, > Hellman, and extropian Ralph Merkle. The Computer > History Museum named the three of them together > as fellows, for their work with each other. > Rudely, the photo that the New York Times used > was actually of the three of them; they cropped Ralph out. > > In the earlier awarding of the Kanellakis Theory > and Practice Award in 1996, all six public-key pioneers were named. > > http://awards.acm.org/kanellakis/year.cfm > > It doesn't make up for losing the prestige and a > third of a million dollars, but I say ye Ralph Merkle! > > > -- David. > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 3 > Date: Wed, 2 Mar 2016 12:13:19 -0800 > From: Tara Maya > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again > Message-ID: > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > The person who took the video should be found and sent to prison, not merely sued. But the amount of money involved is not based on ?hotness? ?it?s based on what would be a deterrent. A lot of money can be made from such videos, and it that means that if the punishment isn?t severe, nothing will be done to stop it. > > A nude video being taken is a huge violation. It?s a form of sexual assault. It?s not some funny little prank. > > Tara Maya > > > > On Mar 2, 2016, at 9:34 AM, spike wrote: > > > > > > > > There is a big case in the US courts about a newscaster who had a nude video taken of her by a stalker who removed the peephole in the door. The video made it to the internet. She claims damages against the hotel chain, not against the guy who took the video. > > > > This whole thing brings up a number of questions. > > > > Why does she think her exposed nudity is really worth 75 million bucks? > > > > What if she had been an ordinary person like you and me: is our nudity worth 75 million, or does it need to be scaled somehow? > > > > How? > > Is there some kind of universal hotness scale? > > Do hotties get more if they are recorded nude than coldies or tepidies? > > How much more? > > Can a person be so bone-deep ugly that such a video is worth zero point nada? > > Is the payout proportional to the number of internet hits? > > Why? > > > > As we brought up a decade ago: it would be eeeeeasy easy to hide a video device in a hotel room, almost completely without risk. It could be set up to receive a call and turn on at any time, and Skype the video to any remote receiver, with very little risk of getting caught and not much cost really. So are we now saying the hotel chain is responsible for find that? In the meantime, are we cool with it that all assured privacy in any public place, any public restroom and any hotel room is > > now gone? Could we not argue that there is no reasonable expectation of privacy there? > > > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > Tara Maya > Blog | Twitter | Facebook | Amazon | Goodreads > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 4 > Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 11:25:29 +0100 > From: Eugenio Mart?nez > To: ExI chat list > Cc: Tomasz Rola > Subject: Re: [ExI] [PRIV] Re: disgusted with Windows > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > If you got tired of Windows 10 just because a program was not compatible > with it or there was some bugs or things like that, you are going back to > Windows in less than a week. > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 11:51 PM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > > > On Mon, Feb 29, 2016 at 01:08:47PM -0600, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > > Update: uninstalled Norton 360, took it home, locked up bad. > > > Am trying to uninstall 10 and go back to Windows 7. Am determined not to > > > lose my Toshiba 17" laptop because of a software conflict, but just in > > > case..... > > > > > > Bought an Acer 15.6"monitor Chromebook for $250. We'll see. > > > > Good - from what I have gathered so far, this may indeed be best > > option for you. Once you get used to it and feel like it, perhaps you > > would be willing to share your thoughts? > > > > -- > > Regards, > > Tomasz Rola > > > > -- > > ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** > > ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** > > ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** > > ** ** > > ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > > > > -- > OLVIDATE.DE > Tatachan.com > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 5 > Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 14:57:45 +0000 > From: BillK > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > On 2 March 2016 at 22:47, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > A career can be quite valuable. Top performers can produce 10-300 times the > > value of an average performer to a company (and would hence expect to get at > > least a fraction of that value as salary), and this is especially true for > > person-linked jobs like media careers. If somebody wrecks a career that > > might actually be worth a few million as 45-Year Earnings and the careerist > > was a top performer, then 75 million might make sense. > > > > > > > In the context of nude videos, I'm not sure that 'top performers' is > really an appropriate phrase to use. :) > > I suspect this is a cunning ploy by spike to get millions when his > nude video hits the internet. > Of course it would have to be 'full-frontal', as in the side view he > almost disappears. > > Though thinking it over, perhaps spike could get more millions if he > promises to *not* put his nude video on the net. :) > > BillK > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 6 > Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 16:23:10 +0100 > From: Anders Sandberg > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again > Message-ID: <56D856DE.3010600 at aleph.se> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed" > > On 2016-03-02 21:13, Tara Maya wrote: > > > > A nude video being taken is a huge violation. It?s a form of sexual > > assault. It?s not some funny little prank. > > The problem is that it depends on who it is. BillK is likely entirely OK > in joking about a hypothetical Spike video, while to others a nude video > can indeed be a sexual assault and is no joking matter at all. A lot of > it depends on whether one belongs to a vulnerable group, or how the > video is spread. > > It seems that the key issues is (1) a nude video means the intimate > sphere has been made public, having a chilling effect on it even when > there is no risk of outside peeking (this can be made even worse by > outsider malicious comments - they can put their barbs more closely to > the skin, so to say), and (2) the lack of control over the released > information - integrity is about being able to control your information, > and once it is out there you cannot do much to regain it in that domain. > > The problem with these is that neither can be remedied well with > technology or law. Adding astronomical fines will not deter people if > they think they can get away with it. Many intimate videos are made for > consumption inside a relationship, but leak out anyway. "A right to be > forgotten" is complicated to achieve outside a social context. > > One day we may build the cryptographic memory-DRM society of the > Oubliette in "A Quantum Thief". But until then it will be hard to do > something general and effective. > > -- > Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Oxford University > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 7 > Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 10:57:37 -0600 > From: William Flynn Wallace > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Thu, Mar 3, 2016 at 9:23 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > > On 2016-03-02 21:13, Tara Maya wrote: > > > > > > A nude video being taken is a huge violation. It?s a form of sexual > > assault. It?s not some funny little prank. > > > > > > The problem is that it depends on who it is. BillK is likely entirely OK > > in joking about a hypothetical Spike video, while to others a nude video > > can indeed be a sexual assault and is no joking matter at all. A lot of it > > depends on whether one belongs to a vulnerable group, or how the video is > > spread. > > > > It seems that the key issues is (1) a nude video means the intimate sphere > > has been made public, having a chilling effect on it even when there is no > > risk of outside peeking (this can be made even worse by outsider malicious > > comments - they can put their barbs more closely to the skin, so to say), > > and (2) the lack of control over the released information - integrity is > > about being able to control your information, and once it is out there you > > cannot do much to regain it in that domain. > > > > The problem with these is that neither can be remedied well with > > technology or law. Adding astronomical fines will not deter people if they > > think they can get away with it. Many intimate videos are made for > > consumption inside a relationship, but leak out anyway. "A right to be > > forgotten" is complicated to achieve outside a social context. > > > > One day we may build the cryptographic memory-DRM society of the Oubliette > > in "A Quantum Thief". But until then it will be hard to do something > > general and effective. > > > > ?I read where sexting is the 'in' thing to do in high school and if you don't, you're just out of the > > > > ?'in' group. I don't know that we will ever get used to a lot less > privacy? > > ?but if everyone who had their nudity exposed on the net by some ex boy > friend sued, the courts would have no room for any other cases. Clearly > many or even most of these are without permission of any kind, which is > hard to prove. And young teens, perhaps the most vulnerable group, are the > most exposed to this. Teens of all sexes will do dumb things to conform to > group norms and it's impossible to stop. For every complaint about it, a > thousand cases go unnoticed - or more. > > In the case that started this chat, the lawyers will go after the deep > pockets (hotel) but I agree with Tara that the people who removed the > device and took the photos should be charged with something: You could > make a case for assault. > > bill w > > > ? > > > > 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: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 8 > Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 08:46:16 -0800 > From: "spike" > To: "'ExI chat list'" > Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again > Message-ID: <002401d1756c$34fd2c60$9ef78520$@att.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf > Of BillK > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 6:58 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again > > On 2 March 2016 at 22:47, Anders Sandberg wrote: > >>... A career can be quite valuable. Top performers can produce 10-300 > > times the value of an average performer to a company ... > > >...In the context of nude videos, I'm not sure that 'top performers' is > really an appropriate phrase to use. :) > > {8^D > > Ja. The ironic part of it is that the penalty to the hotel chain for > (somehow) allowing or facilitating the criminal act is proportional to the > salary potential of the victim. Think of all those topless photos of > Aboriginal people National Geographic published in the 1950s. Good chance > the models had no idea what they were signing up for. I know, that's > different of course. > > >...I suspect this is a cunning ploy by spike to get millions when his nude > video hits the internet... > > Well now that is an idea. > > >...Of course it would have to be 'full-frontal', as in the side view he > almost disappears... > > There is that. > > >...Though thinking it over, perhaps spike could get more millions if he > promises to *not* put his nude video on the net. :) > BillK > > {8^D > > This leads back to the original observation in a way. Cases like these can > only become far more common as more proles discover that video devices can > be hidden where they will never be discovered, activated by a phone call, > video collected by Skype, then the low-cost device abandoned afterward. The > potential damage is proportional somehow to the value of the video, which is > proportional to the hotness of the victim. Now these kinds of court cases > become a beauty contest. > > BillK, you hit it right on: if I were to bring a similar suit, it would be > laughed out of court, along with insults. I can just imagine what the judge > would say. Imagine this same victim except aged 40 yrs. Imagine this same > victim, same crime except that she has had nude photos made professionally > but not published. Same victim, same crime, victim is a news producer > rather than a sports desk anchor. > > spike > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 9 > Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 22:50:37 +0100 > From: Anders Sandberg > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again > Message-ID: <56D8B1AD.4020903 at aleph.se> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed > > On 2016-03-03 17:46, spike wrote: > > This leads back to the original observation in a way. Cases like these > > can only become far more common as more proles discover that video > > devices can be hidden where they will never be discovered, activated > > by a phone call, video collected by Skype, then the low-cost device > > abandoned afterward. The potential damage is proportional somehow to > > the value of the video, which is proportional to the hotness of the > > victim. Now these kinds of court cases become a beauty contest. > > Not exactly. It is a social capital contest. Beauty helps give you > social capital, ugliness reduces it; in fact, lookism is a stronger > factor than racism and sexism in some studies. But the not-so-beautiful > VIP who gets harmed will be less likely to be told "deal with it" than > the nobody. > > This is of course true for all crimes. Social status, ability to speak > for oneself, or to invoke a support network, has always been protective > against being accused, suspected or sentenced for most crimes. Not > perfectly, of course, and there are other reasons people of low SES are > overrepresented in courtrooms too. Conversely, when trying to get the > legal system to listen the above factors really help. > > Crimes against integrity are bad even for slum-dwellers. In fact, they > are often worse for people with few resources since their reputations > and images are all they have. But they are less likely to prevail in > court, or even seek legal help because of less resources and trust. > Meanwhile high social capital people are more likely to try and to get > remedies. > > So, yes, this is a kind of beauty contest. An unfair one, since it is > involuntary and people cannot decide if to participate. But also very > hard to fix, since whatever the system is there tends to be a worst off > group (add affirmative action, and you get a different set; make clear > rules not bound by personal liking, and the people who are bad with > using such rules will be worst off). > > > -- > Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Oxford University > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 10 > Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 23:23:58 +0100 > From: Anders Sandberg > To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > Subject: [ExI] Cognitive enhancement and health > Message-ID: <56D8B97E.9080400 at aleph.se> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > Nice to see neuroenhancement covered in Nature this week. > > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S2a.html > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S6a.html > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S4a.html > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S10a.html > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S12a.html > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S14a.html > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S18a.html > http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v531/n7592_supp/full/531S9a.html > > Still not using transhumanist as a wholly positive word, but it is used. > > Incidentally, Slate Star Codex has its nootropics survey results up: > http://slatestarcodex.com/2016/03/01/2016-nootropics-survey-results/ > > -- > Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Oxford University > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 11 > Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 20:04:00 -0800 > From: Stephen Van Sickle > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > On Mar 2, 2016 09:49, "spike" wrote: > > > There is a big case in the US courts about a newscaster who had a nude > video taken of her by a stalker who removed the peephole in the door. > > Did the miscreant remove the peephole (which can arguable not have been > anticipated by the hotel) or did he use a "reverse peephole" such as this: > > http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Enforcement-Reverse-Peephole-Viewer/dp/B0036VJ3J4 > > If the later, these are so available and cheap that not installing a > peephole with a cover: > > http://www.amazon.com/Tg3828PH-220-degree-Privacy-Thickness-Polished/dp/B00T415N8A/ref=sr_1_3?s=hi&ie=UTF8&qid=1457064088&sr=1-3&keywords=Door+peephole+cover > > could well be negligence. > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 12 > Date: Thu, 3 Mar 2016 20:34:54 -0800 > From: "spike" > To: "'ExI chat list'" > Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again > Message-ID: <003301d175cf$33ba1c10$9b2e5430$@att.net> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > > > > > From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Stephen Van Sickle > Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2016 8:04 PM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again > > > > > On Mar 2, 2016 09:49, "spike" > wrote: > > > >?There is a big case in the US courts about a newscaster who had a nude video taken of her by a stalker who removed the peephole in the door. > > >?Did the miscreant remove the peephole (which can arguable not have been anticipated by the hotel) or did he use a "reverse peephole" such as this: > > http://www.amazon.com/Universal-Enforcement-Reverse-Peephole-Viewer/dp/B0036VJ3J4 > > If the later, these are so available and cheap that not installing a peephole with a cover: > > http://www.amazon.com/Tg3828PH-220-degree-Privacy-Thickness-Polished/dp/B00T415N8A/ref=sr_1_3?s=hi &ie=UTF8&qid=1457064088&sr=1-3&keywords=Door+peephole+cover > > could well be negligence? > > > > > > > > This is from the court testimony: > > After hearing Andrews leave, he removed the peephole from her door and went back to his own room, where he used a hacksaw to cut off the threads attached to it. > > ?I removed the peephole, altered it,? he said. ?I cut off the threads so it was basically a plug and could be put back in.? > > Later on in the day, Barrett returned to his room and heard the shower on in Andrews? room. > > ?I went back to the room, and unfortunately for both of us, I could hear that the shower was on in her room when I walked by,? he said. > > ?I waited until the shower went off. Then I pulled out the plug and waited for the opportunity.? > > There are a thousand ways something like this can happen. A sleazebag could perhaps use an endoscope underneath the door in those hotels where some adjoining rooms have a pair of doors separating them. I have seen flexible endoscopes smaller in diameter than a pencil that would fit underneath a door. > > A cell phone could be hidden in ceiling tiles or a smoke detector could be modified: slimeball rents room, switches smoke detector with one containing a cell phone camera, along with plenty of electrical storage capacity, checks out and perhaps records next occupants, later returns and retrieves phony smoke detector, replacing original. Lets a few months go by, emails video to occupant, demands whatever method those Hollywood hospital ransom-demander used, bitcoin, to collect the ransom, no way to catch the sleazy bastard. > > If the perp is careful and doesn?t leave fingerprints on the smoke detector, the authorities probably couldn?t even figure out whodunit: one hotel room looks like any other, and they might not even be able to determine what hotel was bugged. The bad guy could hide the video device inside the clock by the bed, rent the room, switch the clock, get the video, switch them back later. Or hide the device inside the HVAC vent. Hotels cannot stop this sort of thing. > > spike > > > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 13 > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 08:36:56 +0100 > From: Giulio Prisco > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] Alexander Chislenko article on English Wikipedia in > danger of deletion > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > The article has been deleted. Too bad I missed this post and couldn't > participate in the Wikipedia discussion. Unfortunately Wikipedia has > been colonized by SJWs (in this case, "Scientific Justice Warriors") > who want to purge imagination from our spirit. I don't pay much > attention to idiots, but Wikipedia is more and more important because > Wikipedia pages are often at the top of Google search results. > Debating SJWs is boring, but I think we should fight back. > > On Thu, Feb 25, 2016 at 10:12 PM, Mike Linksvayer wrote: > > If you edit Wikipedia and/or have good references that can be used to > > improve the article, visit and contribute: > > > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Chislenko > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Chislenko > > > > Mike > > _______________________________________________ > > extropy-chat mailing list > > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 14 > Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 12:43:40 -0600 > From: William Flynn Wallace > To: ExI chat list , Tomasz Rola > > Subject: [ExI] chromebook 1st report > Message-ID: > > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" > > Bought an Acer Chromebook 15 - 15.6" screen, ssd > > It's not quite my 17" Toshiba laptop but it's sufficient - and very bright. > > It's hot - really fast. Boots in 7 seconds and turns off about the same. > Web pages fast - maybe one second. > > I do miss my lighted keyboard, though typing on this is just fine. > > $250 - makes me think of the many thousands I paid for the first Pentium, > (never mind my PCjr) my Apple Powerbook ($4200 - died after the warranty > died). > > I do miss some of my Firefox addons like tree style tab but I have yet to > really explore addons for this one. > > Plugged in the Logitech usb and my rollerball worked right away. > > Several keys missing: delete, page up and down, function keys, but most > replaceable by shortcuts using alt or ctrl > > So far, so good, or maybe a lot better than good. > > bill w > -------------- next part -------------- > An HTML attachment was scrubbed... > URL: > > ------------------------------ > > Subject: Digest Footer > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > > ------------------------------ > > End of extropy-chat Digest, Vol 150, Issue 2 > ******************************************** -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Mar 4 22:13:38 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 4 Mar 2016 16:13:38 -0600 Subject: [ExI] virtualbox etc. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Bought a Chromebook - maybe you saw my email. The kernel is Linux. So far I am really happy with it. Thanks! bill w On Sun, Feb 28, 2016 at 6:38 PM, CryptAxe wrote: > I use virtualbox when I'm programming to test things in different > environments, it's meant more for business and development applications > than for your purposes. I still recommend the mac mini. And then later you > can decide to move to Linux, the jump is well worth it! > On Feb 28, 2016 3:36 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" > wrote: > >> First, this seems inferior: >> >> http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2410292,00.asp >> >> Second, while I have visited Wikipedia and explored several definitions >> of things, I still cannot figure out the damned thing is for. >> >> It runs a virtual copy of an OS, right? Why? If I downloaded Linux, why >> not run that straight rather than through Virtual box? If I run Windows >> through it will that fix any problems? See how lost I am? >> >> Maybe it's hard for you to understand that from what I read about this >> stuff, I am a total beginner and thus lost. >> >> 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 lubkin at unreasonable.com Sat Mar 5 04:00:35 2016 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Fri, 04 Mar 2016 23:00:35 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Alexander Chislenko article on English Wikipedia in danger of deletion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <201603050400.u2540vta000840@ziaspace.com> I have become increasingly disheartened by Wikipedia. It used to be that its policies and decisions were generally fair, rational, and defensible, even where I disagreed with them. At best, they exemplified the impartiality that a world reference work should have. Of late, the decisions I've seen have struck me as biased and indefensible. The grounds for deleting Sasha's entry are just one recent example. This cannot stand. Sooner or later?preferably sooner?Wikipedia will be reformed. Or it will be re-formed, in a successor project, as we've seen with many other open source efforts. -- David. From atymes at gmail.com Sat Mar 5 09:38:13 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 5 Mar 2016 01:38:13 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Alexander Chislenko article on English Wikipedia in danger of deletion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 4, 2016 at 11:03 AM, david roman wrote: > I'm stunned to read the discussion in > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Alexander_Chislenko- > One Wikieditor goes as far as writing: > Even worse. Hits in google search prove nothing. What we need is > references to *reliable* sources. Google books hit lots of self-published > garbage. "Transhumanists" produce floods of bullshit. Staszek Lem > (talk > ) 19:35, 24 February > 2016 (UTC) > Is this gutter level of discourse common, whenever one engages people > outside the Transhumanist movement? I'm just curious, since I'm new at this > and would like to be ready. > First: don't refer to that as "gutter" when there are far, far more deserving targets for that label in common discourse, such as the current leading Republican presidential candidates' views on science and most scientific topics. Using that kind of emotional tone where it isn't called for (and it isn't in this case) will reinforce your defensive memes in a way that makes it harder for you to understand what actually happened here, leaving you angry and confused - which just feeds said defensive memes. Second: yes, it is quite common to treat what you may think of as transhumanist idols with, shall we say, much less respect than you think they deserve. In this case, that Wikipedian was demanding sources on what other, neutral people said about Alexander Chislenko, since Wikipedia is supposed to be about things found notable to the general public (not just to certain small crowds), and found not much. I will admit, I had never heard the name before this thread. With no emotional stake, I looked at the RfD and saw many people saying "no reliable sources" versus one person trying to counter them all. That kind of situation tends, rightfully IMO, to result in the one person losing. If there really was that much larger of a crowd that found that man notable, where were they? Also, if there is that much bigger of a crowd, then how about recreating the page, with a bunch of links to sources that are not his works in any way, shape, or form, but are talking about him and what he did? Although, if you can't find many...that's the reason why the article got deleted: others, who hadn't heard of him before, couldn't find them either. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rtomek at ceti.pl Sun Mar 6 15:54:25 2016 From: rtomek at ceti.pl (Tomasz Rola) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 16:54:25 +0100 Subject: [ExI] chromebook 1st report In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20160306155425.GA929@tau1.ceti.pl> On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 12:43:40PM -0600, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Bought an Acer Chromebook 15 - 15.6" screen, ssd > [...] > > Plugged in the Logitech usb and my rollerball worked right away. > > Several keys missing: delete, page up and down, function keys, but most > replaceable by shortcuts using alt or ctrl Well, no delete? Hm. There is always a reason or two to run laptop with external full sized keyboard, especially when one writes more than few lines a day. No delete key would be another one to try one of those cheapish few-bucks-a-piece usb keyboard from your nearest computer shop - maybe just not a wireless one, their comfortableness is ilusoric but security problem they introduce is not. Now, a question. Do you have Escape key on your kb? Without Escape my life would have been rather miserable so it is good to know such things... -- Regards, Tomasz Rola -- ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** ** ** ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Mar 6 16:19:59 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 10:19:59 -0600 Subject: [ExI] chromebook 1st report In-Reply-To: <20160306155425.GA929@tau1.ceti.pl> References: <20160306155425.GA929@tau1.ceti.pl> Message-ID: I have an ESC key and have been using Backspace to erase for a long time, so I don't miss Delete. There is an option like 'mouseover' - hover for a second over a link and it automatically clicks. You can set a time length for that. You do have to be careful where you leave your pointer (which you can change to large) I have zero complaints at this time. bill w On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Tomasz Rola wrote: > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 12:43:40PM -0600, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Bought an Acer Chromebook 15 - 15.6" screen, ssd > > > [...] > > > > Plugged in the Logitech usb and my rollerball worked right away. > > > > Several keys missing: delete, page up and down, function keys, but most > > replaceable by shortcuts using alt or ctrl > > Well, no delete? Hm. There is always a reason or two to run laptop > with external full sized keyboard, especially when one writes more > than few lines a day. No delete key would be another one to try one of > those cheapish few-bucks-a-piece usb keyboard from your nearest > computer shop - maybe just not a wireless one, their comfortableness > is ilusoric but security problem they introduce is not. > > Now, a question. Do you have Escape key on your kb? Without Escape my > life would have been rather miserable so it is good to know such > things... > > -- > Regards, > Tomasz Rola > > -- > ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** > ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** > ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** > ** ** > ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com ** > _______________________________________________ > 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 moulton at moulton.com Sun Mar 6 16:40:09 2016 From: moulton at moulton.com (F. C. Moulton) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2016 08:40:09 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Alexander Chislenko article on English Wikipedia in danger of deletion In-Reply-To: <201603050400.u2540vta000840@ziaspace.com> References: <201603050400.u2540vta000840@ziaspace.com> Message-ID: <56DC5D69.1080503@moulton.com> On 03/04/2016 08:00 PM, David Lubkin wrote: > This cannot stand. Sooner or later? preferably sooner ?Wikipedia will be > reformed. Or it will be re-formed, in a successor project, as we've seen > with many other open source efforts. Attempting to recreate or reform Wikipedia might be a bit difficult. If the immediate concern is about what is being deleted then a less ambitious approach is to start mirroring a read-only copy an any page that gets put into the deletion process by Wikipedia. The result would only address the deletion problem but would be a start. The downside of doing all of the articles marked for deletion means that a lot of stuff of little interest would be collected but perhaps there is a market for it; I do not know. Or more to the concerns of persons on this list a project could started for mirroring all of the articles on Wikipedia related to transhumanism, extropians, and other topics of interest to persons on this list. Put the mirror up in the cloud such as AWS and the cost will be relatively low. [Disclosure: I currently work for Amazon so my mention of AWS is slightly self-serving.] Also note that there are currently other information sites. A couple of examples: http://transhumanism.wikia.com/wiki/Alexander_Chislenko http://everything.explained.today/Alexander_Chislenko/ I am kicking around a few more ideas and if anything seems useful I will post them. Fred -- F. C. Moulton moulton at moulton.com From giulio at gmail.com Sun Mar 6 17:32:20 2016 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 18:32:20 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Alexander Chislenko article on English Wikipedia in danger of deletion In-Reply-To: <56DC5D69.1080503@moulton.com> References: <201603050400.u2540vta000840@ziaspace.com> <56DC5D69.1080503@moulton.com> Message-ID: I also started a wiki intended (among other things) as a staging area for better versions of Wikipedia pages, to be copied to Wikipedia when they are complete and with a lot of citations. It's a closed wiki, but I'll create a userid for all trusted friends who want to contribute. http://irrationalmechanics.com/ On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 5:40 PM, F. C. Moulton wrote: > > > On 03/04/2016 08:00 PM, David Lubkin wrote: >> >> This cannot stand. Sooner or later? preferably sooner ?Wikipedia will be >> reformed. Or it will be re-formed, in a successor project, as we've seen >> with many other open source efforts. > > > Attempting to recreate or reform Wikipedia might be a bit difficult. If the > immediate concern is about what is being deleted then a less ambitious > approach is to start mirroring a read-only copy an any page that gets put > into the deletion process by Wikipedia. The result would only address the > deletion problem but would be a start. The downside of doing all of the > articles marked for deletion means that a lot of stuff of little interest > would be collected but perhaps there is a market for it; I do not know. > > Or more to the concerns of persons on this list a project could started for > mirroring all of the articles on Wikipedia related to transhumanism, > extropians, and other topics of interest to persons on this list. Put the > mirror up in the cloud such as AWS and the cost will be relatively low. > [Disclosure: I currently work for Amazon so my mention of AWS is slightly > self-serving.] > > Also note that there are currently other information sites. > A couple of examples: > http://transhumanism.wikia.com/wiki/Alexander_Chislenko > http://everything.explained.today/Alexander_Chislenko/ > > I am kicking around a few more ideas and if anything seems useful I will > post them. > > Fred > > -- > F. C. Moulton > moulton at moulton.com > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From lubkin at unreasonable.com Sun Mar 6 17:37:44 2016 From: lubkin at unreasonable.com (David Lubkin) Date: Sun, 06 Mar 2016 12:37:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Alexander Chislenko article on English Wikipedia in danger of deletion In-Reply-To: <56DC5D69.1080503@moulton.com> References: <201603050400.u2540vta000840@ziaspace.com> <56DC5D69.1080503@moulton.com> Message-ID: <201603061737.u26Hbseg003098@ziaspace.com> I wrote: >>This cannot stand. Sooner or later? preferably sooner ?Wikipedia will be >>reformed. Or it will be re-formed, in a successor project, as we've seen >>with many other open source efforts. Fred replied: >Attempting to recreate or reform Wikipedia might >be a bit difficult. If the immediate concern is about what is being deleted My concerns are many. Another is how they handle divisive questions, which they're supposed to balance. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view One they handled excellently: There's a city known alternately as Gdansk and Danzig. It is currently in Poland, where it is known as Gdansk. The article about it uses Gdansk for those periods in its history when it went by that name and Danzig for those periods it went by that name. Versus the article on Caitlyn ? Bruce Jenner. Which I think should similarly use the pronouns that correspond to the gender that Jenner was known as at the time being written about. Instead, female pronouns are used throughout. Or the policies on "original research" and articles a contributor might have personal knowledge of. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_original_research https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons In my case, two in my family have articles. Several others could; they meet WP notability standards. At least twelve of us are mentioned in WP. I have not edited or written articles about any?it's not worth jumping through WP's policy hoops. -- David. From ml at gondwanaland.com Sun Mar 6 18:34:54 2016 From: ml at gondwanaland.com (Mike Linksvayer) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 10:34:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Alexander Chislenko article on English Wikipedia in danger of deletion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 5, 2016 at 1:38 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Also, if there is that much bigger of a crowd, then how about recreating the > page, with a bunch of links to sources that are not his works in any way, > shape, or form, but are talking about him and what he did? Although, if you > can't find many...that's the reason why the article got deleted: others, who > hadn't heard of him before, couldn't find them either. Indeed. I posted here on the chance that someone here might be familiar with such works about him and what he did. There's still a corresponding Wikidata item (much lower threshold for inclusion) at https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q4718596 Adding statements and references there would be most helpful for any article re-creation on English Wikipedia, or creation on any other language edition. Images and other media uploads to https://commons.wikimedia.org are also helpful, if and only if you're the creator or can document permission from the creator. Wikipedia (language editions each have slightly different policies, but I think broadly similar) reliable sources policies do reinforce preexisting publication biases. Ignore trash talking, that's the real issue. It impacts vast swathes of potentially encyclopedic topics, e.g., non-western history. It's also a hard problem to solve. Above holds for any topic of interest. I just happened to notice the Chislenko deletion notice. Mike From justThisGuyYouKnow at nigge.rs Sun Mar 6 16:44:23 2016 From: justThisGuyYouKnow at nigge.rs (Zaphod) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 08:44:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] chromebook 1st report In-Reply-To: References: <20160306155425.GA929@tau1.ceti.pl> Message-ID: <56DC5E67.8050407@nigge.rs> Can you run Vim? William Flynn Wallace on March 06: > I have an ESC key and have been using Backspace to erase for a long > time, so I don't miss Delete. There is an option like 'mouseover' - > hover for a second over a link and it automatically clicks. You can > set a time length for that. You do have to be careful where you leave > your pointer (which you can change to large) > > I have zero complaints at this time. > > bill w > > On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 9:54 AM, Tomasz Rola > wrote: > > On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 12:43:40PM -0600, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Bought an Acer Chromebook 15 - 15.6" screen, ssd > > > [...] > > > > Plugged in the Logitech usb and my rollerball worked right away. > > > > Several keys missing: delete, page up and down, function keys, but most > > replaceable by shortcuts using alt or ctrl > > Well, no delete? Hm. There is always a reason or two to run laptop > with external full sized keyboard, especially when one writes more > than few lines a day. No delete key would be another one to try one of > those cheapish few-bucks-a-piece usb keyboard from your nearest > computer shop - maybe just not a wireless one, their comfortableness > is ilusoric but security problem they introduce is not. > > Now, a question. Do you have Escape key on your kb? Without Escape my > life would have been rather miserable so it is good to know such > things... > > -- > Regards, > Tomasz Rola > > -- > ** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature. ** > ** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home ** > ** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened... ** > ** ** > ** Tomasz Rola mailto:tomasz_rola at bigfoot.com > ** > _______________________________________________ > 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 -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0x638FEC71.asc Type: application/pgp-keys Size: 3092 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Mar 6 19:23:32 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 19:23:32 +0000 Subject: [ExI] chromebook 1st report In-Reply-To: <56DC5E67.8050407@nigge.rs> References: <20160306155425.GA929@tau1.ceti.pl> <56DC5E67.8050407@nigge.rs> Message-ID: On 6 March 2016 at 16:44, Zaphod wrote: > Can you run Vim? > Why would he want to??? William is not a developer. He can type emails in the Chrome browser and documents in Google Docs. That should be enough for him. BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Mar 6 20:40:18 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 14:40:18 -0600 Subject: [ExI] chromebook 1st report In-Reply-To: References: <20160306155425.GA929@tau1.ceti.pl> <56DC5E67.8050407@nigge.rs> Message-ID: I only have a 16 gig drive, so downloads are very limited. I will do a few addons and that is probably all I will ever do. I may buy another one, and I have an option for 32 gigs but I don't know, at this point, that I will ever need it. In any case I have a big box my son built with all the speed, storage, etc. that I could possibly need. Terabytes of storage. Love the cat picture on the aerial. We have four cats. Once I had two litters of kittens at the same time. Twelve cats in the house. Had to slide around in socks because of the furry horde. Have had up to four dogs at one time. None now - too needy. My wife would have a zoo if it were possible. bill w On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 1:23 PM, BillK wrote: > On 6 March 2016 at 16:44, Zaphod wrote: > > Can you run Vim? > > > > Why would he want to??? William is not a developer. > > He can type emails in the Chrome browser and documents in Google Docs. > That should be enough for him. > > 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 ddraig at gmail.com Sun Mar 6 23:58:03 2016 From: ddraig at gmail.com (ddraig) Date: Mon, 7 Mar 2016 10:58:03 +1100 Subject: [ExI] Alexander Chislenko article on English Wikipedia in danger of deletion In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 5 March 2016 at 06:03, david roman wrote: 5 lines of text followed by TWENTY SIX PAGES of quoted stuff. It looked like an entire daily digest. Could people trim their replies, please. [shakes fist at Google's insane quoting system] Replying to this required deleting a vast amount of stuff. Otherwise you're going to get digests full of quoted digests quoting digests which are nothing but quoted digests. And a single "lol" Dwayne -- ddraig at pobox.com irc.bluesphereweb.com #dna ...r.e.t.u.r.n....t.o....t.h.e....s.o.u.r.c.e... http://tinyurl.com/he-is-right-you-know-jpg our aim is wakefulness, our enemy is dreamless sleep -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Mar 7 03:18:07 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 21:18:07 -0600 Subject: [ExI] chromebook Message-ID: It puts out no heat whatsoever. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Mar 7 03:39:24 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 19:39:24 -0800 Subject: [ExI] chromebook In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007d01d17822$f2194aa0$d64bdfe0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Sunday, March 06, 2016 7:18 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] chromebook >?It puts out no heat whatsoever. bill w Ah, this is an indication you are not flogging it hard enough. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Tue Mar 8 08:28:53 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 09:28:53 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Alexander Chislenko article on English Wikipedia in danger of deletion In-Reply-To: <56DC5D69.1080503@moulton.com> References: <201603050400.u2540vta000840@ziaspace.com> <56DC5D69.1080503@moulton.com> Message-ID: <56DE8D45.6000505@aleph.se> There is also the http://hpluspedia.org/ which looks it is a bit larger than transhumanism.wikia.com and currently undergoing a growth spurt. On 2016-03-06 17:40, F. C. Moulton wrote: > On 03/04/2016 08:00 PM, David Lubkin wrote: >> This cannot stand. Sooner or later? preferably sooner ?Wikipedia will be >> reformed. Or it will be re-formed, in a successor project, as we've seen >> with many other open source efforts. > > Attempting to recreate or reform Wikipedia might be a bit difficult. Indeed. One of the interesting aspects with systems like this is that it is not just a technical system but a social system. And the complexity of such hybrid systems make them pretty resilient both to disturbances and to reform. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From giulio at gmail.com Tue Mar 8 08:35:55 2016 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 09:35:55 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Alexander Chislenko article on English Wikipedia in danger of deletion In-Reply-To: <56DE8D45.6000505@aleph.se> References: <201603050400.u2540vta000840@ziaspace.com> <56DC5D69.1080503@moulton.com> <56DE8D45.6000505@aleph.se> Message-ID: That's why instead of one social system there should be many. On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 9:28 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > There is also the http://hpluspedia.org/ which looks it is a bit larger than > transhumanism.wikia.com and currently undergoing a growth spurt. > > On 2016-03-06 17:40, F. C. Moulton wrote: >> >> On 03/04/2016 08:00 PM, David Lubkin wrote: >>> >>> This cannot stand. Sooner or later? preferably sooner ?Wikipedia will be >>> reformed. Or it will be re-formed, in a successor project, as we've seen >>> with many other open source efforts. >> >> >> Attempting to recreate or reform Wikipedia might be a bit difficult. > > > Indeed. One of the interesting aspects with systems like this is that it is > not just a technical system but a social system. And the complexity of such > hybrid systems make them pretty resilient both to disturbances and to > reform. > > > -- > 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 Tue Mar 8 09:02:26 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 10:02:26 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Alexander Chislenko article on English Wikipedia in danger of deletion In-Reply-To: References: <201603050400.u2540vta000840@ziaspace.com> <56DC5D69.1080503@moulton.com> <56DE8D45.6000505@aleph.se> Message-ID: <56DE9522.2040107@aleph.se> On 2016-03-08 09:35, Giulio Prisco wrote: > That's why instead of one social system there should be many. Economies of scale. Consider Scholarpedia - http://www.scholarpedia.org/ It has articles written by domain experts. The result is that it covers a few domains, and even in these domains many key articles are not written yet. The existing articles are generally good, but getting the expert to take time to write the article on her topic of expertise is hard: they might promise one, but actually getting it done between the research and grant writing is hard. If every community wrote their own wiki, we would have a lot of wikis. But they would tend to cover only a part of even what the community considers important, let alone what other communities would like to know. Worse, their productivity would be low, both in terms of article production and maintenance (which is strongly dependent on number of editors). -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From giulio at gmail.com Tue Mar 8 09:40:01 2016 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 10:40:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Alexander Chislenko article on English Wikipedia in danger of deletion In-Reply-To: <56DE9522.2040107@aleph.se> References: <201603050400.u2540vta000840@ziaspace.com> <56DC5D69.1080503@moulton.com> <56DE8D45.6000505@aleph.se> <56DE9522.2040107@aleph.se> Message-ID: What to do then? It's a fact that some specific biases tend to dominate Wikipedia. I have mostly given up on Wikipedia, and these days make only minor factual edits on non-controversial topics. But of course that empowers the biased zealots even more. We have discussed a "Wikipedia Task Force" on this list many times, but never created one. I guess we all have other things to do... Having said that, I would be happy to participate in a Wikipedia Task Force. On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 2016-03-08 09:35, Giulio Prisco wrote: >> >> That's why instead of one social system there should be many. > > Economies of scale. > > Consider Scholarpedia - http://www.scholarpedia.org/ It has articles written > by domain experts. The result is that it covers a few domains, and even in > these domains many key articles are not written yet. The existing articles > are generally good, but getting the expert to take time to write the article > on her topic of expertise is hard: they might promise one, but actually > getting it done between the research and grant writing is hard. > > If every community wrote their own wiki, we would have a lot of wikis. But > they would tend to cover only a part of even what the community considers > important, let alone what other communities would like to know. Worse, their > productivity would be low, both in terms of article production and > maintenance (which is strongly dependent on number of editors). > > > > > -- > 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 justThisGuyYouKnow at nigge.rs Sun Mar 6 19:39:23 2016 From: justThisGuyYouKnow at nigge.rs (Zaphod) Date: Sun, 6 Mar 2016 11:39:23 -0800 Subject: [ExI] chromebook 1st report In-Reply-To: References: <20160306155425.GA929@tau1.ceti.pl> <56DC5E67.8050407@nigge.rs> Message-ID: <56DC876B.3020400@nigge.rs> I only ask because I spend my entire day in Vim and Thunderbird, and I'm interested in Chromebooks. Billk on March 06: > On 6 March 2016 at 16:44, Zaphod wrote: >> Can you run Vim? >> > > Why would he want to??? William is not a developer. > > He can type emails in the Chrome browser and documents in Google Docs. > That should be enough for him. > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: 0x638FEC71.asc Type: application/pgp-keys Size: 3092 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 819 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: From crw at crw.io Tue Mar 8 17:45:53 2016 From: crw at crw.io (crw) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 09:45:53 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Alexander Chislenko article on English Wikipedia in danger of deletion In-Reply-To: References: <201603050400.u2540vta000840@ziaspace.com> <56DC5D69.1080503@moulton.com> <56DE8D45.6000505@aleph.se> <56DE9522.2040107@aleph.se> Message-ID: <56DF0FD1.1040603@crw.io> On 3/8/2016 1:40 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > What to do then? It's a fact that some specific biases tend to > dominate Wikipedia. I have mostly given up on Wikipedia, and these > days make only minor factual edits on non-controversial topics. But of > course that empowers the biased zealots even more. We have discussed a > "Wikipedia Task Force" on this list many times, but never created one. > I guess we all have other things to do... Having said that, I would be > happy to participate in a Wikipedia Task Force. > > On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: >> On 2016-03-08 09:35, Giulio Prisco wrote: >>> That's why instead of one social system there should be many. >> Economies of scale. Wikipedia could make more flexible use of the namespace system to effectively bolt a 'subreddit-like-entity' onto each and every article. Different schools of thought could then be better represented and (depending on how the UI/UX is done) unpopular views could be more discoverable. The Talk: namespace can be painful to trudge through, for even relatively uncontroversial articles. This might be by-design - one would have to really care about a subject to bother to tread there. Breaking that namespace out in the spirit of "let a thousand flowers bloom" could certainly address the issue, while at the same time creating additional administrative overhead (dealing with abuse, spam, etc, yuck). Maybe worth the trade-off? -crw. From sparge at gmail.com Tue Mar 8 18:24:27 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:24:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] chromebook 1st report In-Reply-To: <56DC876B.3020400@nigge.rs> References: <20160306155425.GA929@tau1.ceti.pl> <56DC5E67.8050407@nigge.rs> <56DC876B.3020400@nigge.rs> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 6, 2016 at 2:39 PM, Zaphod wrote: > I only ask because I spend my entire day in Vim and Thunderbird, and I'm > interested in Chromebooks. > Doesn't sound like a natural fit to me. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Tue Mar 8 18:27:21 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 13:27:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Alexander Chislenko article on English Wikipedia in danger of deletion In-Reply-To: <56DF0FD1.1040603@crw.io> References: <201603050400.u2540vta000840@ziaspace.com> <56DC5D69.1080503@moulton.com> <56DE8D45.6000505@aleph.se> <56DE9522.2040107@aleph.se> <56DF0FD1.1040603@crw.io> Message-ID: Sorry, I understand this list's emotional attachment to Sasha, but it appears to me that Wikipedia did the right thing in removing that page. -Dave On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 12:45 PM, crw wrote: > On 3/8/2016 1:40 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > >> What to do then? It's a fact that some specific biases tend to >> dominate Wikipedia. I have mostly given up on Wikipedia, and these >> days make only minor factual edits on non-controversial topics. But of >> course that empowers the biased zealots even more. We have discussed a >> "Wikipedia Task Force" on this list many times, but never created one. >> I guess we all have other things to do... Having said that, I would be >> happy to participate in a Wikipedia Task Force. >> >> On Tue, Mar 8, 2016 at 10:02 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: >> >>> On 2016-03-08 09:35, Giulio Prisco wrote: >>> >>>> That's why instead of one social system there should be many. >>>> >>> Economies of scale. >>> >> > Wikipedia could make more flexible use of the namespace system to > effectively bolt a 'subreddit-like-entity' onto each and every article. > Different schools of thought could then be better represented and > (depending on how the UI/UX is done) unpopular views could be more > discoverable. > > The Talk: namespace can be painful to trudge through, for even relatively > uncontroversial articles. This might be by-design - one would have to > really care about a subject to bother to tread there. Breaking that > namespace out in the spirit of "let a thousand flowers bloom" could > certainly address the issue, while at the same time creating additional > administrative overhead (dealing with abuse, spam, etc, yuck). Maybe worth > the trade-off? > > -crw. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Tue Mar 8 18:32:40 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 18:32:40 +0000 Subject: [ExI] chromebook 1st report In-Reply-To: <56DC876B.3020400@nigge.rs> References: <20160306155425.GA929@tau1.ceti.pl> <56DC5E67.8050407@nigge.rs> <56DC876B.3020400@nigge.rs> Message-ID: On 6 March 2016 at 19:39, Zaphod wrote: > I only ask because I spend my entire day in Vim and Thunderbird, and I'm > interested in Chromebooks. > If you go to the Chrome Web store and search for Vim, there appears to be several options. BillK From pharos at gmail.com Wed Mar 9 19:10:32 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 19:10:32 +0000 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match Message-ID: Google's DeepMind defeats legendary Go player Lee Se-dol in historic victory Quote: "I was very surprised," said Lee after the match. "I didn't expect to lose. [But] I didn't think AlphaGo would play the game in such a perfect manner." DeepMind founder Demis Hassabis expressed "huge respect for Lee Se-dol and his amazing skills," calling the game "hugely exciting" and "very tense." Team lead David Silver said it was an "amazing game of Go that really pushed AlphaGo to its limits." "I don?t regret accepting this challenge," said Lee. "I am in shock, I admit that, but what's done is done. I enjoyed this game and look forward to the next. I think I failed on the opening layout so if I do a better job on the opening aspect I think I will be able to increase my probability of winning." Lee was surprised both by how strong AlphaGo's opening was, and by some unexpected moves. Lee will face off against AlphaGo again tomorrow and on Saturday, Sunday, and Tuesday (11pm ET the previous evenings in the US). Whatever happens in the rest of the series, AlphaGo's victory today is a colossal moment for AI ? but Lee is going to be looking for revenge. "It was a very close and tense game today," says Hassabis. "When we came into this match we thought anything was possible and we still think that now ? there?s still four games to go." --------- It sounds to me as though Lee was surprised by the ability of DeepMind. He will play seriously from now on! :) BillK From spike66 at att.net Wed Mar 9 19:39:46 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 11:39:46 -0800 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Quote: >>..."I was very surprised," said Lee after the match. "I didn't expect to lose. [But] I didn't think AlphaGo would play the game in such a perfect manner." ... --------- >...It sounds to me as though Lee was surprised by the ability of DeepMind. He will play seriously from now on! :) BillK _______________________________________________ I am seeing a replay of what computers were doing in chess in the 1990s. We were persistently astonished at how good those things were getting. They didn't exhibit the usual human pattern of steady growth with a fairly sudden (and persistent) leveling of ability at some point. It isn't even clear to me that computers have yet completely leveled off, as humans always do. The Go players are seeing that today. I see this as encouraging however. It indicates to me that everything we think of as intelligence has some kind of algorithm behind it, and that the algorithm can be discovered. If not, something that works in place of whatever our brains are doing is discoverable. spike From sparge at gmail.com Wed Mar 9 20:12:57 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 15:12:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match In-Reply-To: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> References: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 2:39 PM, spike wrote: > I see this as encouraging however. It indicates to me that everything we > think of as intelligence has some kind of algorithm behind it, and that the > algorithm can be discovered. If not, something that works in place of > whatever our brains are doing is discoverable. If all you want is a system that can play chess or go, that's clearly doable. But these are more simulated intelligence than artificial intelligence. Produce a system that can be taught any game the way a human learns it, and can learn to play it well via playing and studying the game, and *that* will be AI. It doesn't have to be a terribly complex game, and the level of play doesn't have to equal human masters: just the general ability to learn a game and improve its play will be tremendously more impressive than DeepMind. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Mar 9 20:31:03 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 14:31:03 -0600 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match In-Reply-To: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> References: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> Message-ID: A typical group (that is, averaged) learning curve starts with a small positively accelerated section, followed by a longer negatively accelerated section going towards an asymtote. The faster the learning the steeper the negative section. What does an AI curve look like? bill w On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 1:39 PM, spike wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On > Behalf Of BillK > > > Quote: > >>..."I was very surprised," said Lee after the match. "I didn't expect to > lose. [But] I didn't think AlphaGo would play the game in such a perfect > manner." ... > --------- > > > >...It sounds to me as though Lee was surprised by the ability of DeepMind. > He will play seriously from now on! :) > > BillK > _______________________________________________ > > > I am seeing a replay of what computers were doing in chess in the 1990s. > We were persistently astonished at how good those things were getting. > They didn't exhibit the usual human pattern of steady growth with a fairly > sudden (and persistent) leveling of ability at some point. It isn't even > clear to me that computers have yet completely leveled off, as humans > always do. The Go players are seeing that today. > > I see this as encouraging however. It indicates to me that everything we > think of as intelligence has some kind of algorithm behind it, and that the > algorithm can be discovered. If not, something that works in place of > whatever our brains are doing is discoverable. > > 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 protokol2020 at gmail.com Wed Mar 9 20:33:14 2016 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 21:33:14 +0100 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match In-Reply-To: References: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> Message-ID: Whatever is achieved, there will be a smart ass saying that this is nothing special. Something else should do. And then, this something else becomes nothing special, as soon as it's done. On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 9:12 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 2:39 PM, spike wrote: > >> I see this as encouraging however. It indicates to me that everything we >> think of as intelligence has some kind of algorithm behind it, and that the >> algorithm can be discovered. If not, something that works in place of >> whatever our brains are doing is discoverable. > > > If all you want is a system that can play chess or go, that's clearly > doable. But these are more simulated intelligence than artificial > intelligence. Produce a system that can be taught any game the way a human > learns it, and can learn to play it well via playing and studying the game, > and *that* will be AI. It doesn't have to be a terribly complex game, and > the level of play doesn't have to equal human masters: just the general > ability to learn a game and improve its play will be tremendously more > impressive than DeepMind. > > -Dave > > _______________________________________________ > 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 pharos at gmail.com Wed Mar 9 20:45:44 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 20:45:44 +0000 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match In-Reply-To: References: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> Message-ID: On 9 March 2016 at 20:12, Dave Sill wrote: > If all you want is a system that can play chess or go, that's clearly > doable. But these are more simulated intelligence than artificial > intelligence. Produce a system that can be taught any game the way a human > learns it, and can learn to play it well via playing and studying the game, > and *that* will be AI. It doesn't have to be a terribly complex game, and > the level of play doesn't have to equal human masters: just the general > ability to learn a game and improve its play will be tremendously more > impressive than DeepMind. > DeepMind *did* teach itself to play Go better. DeepBlue (the chess program) did a brute force look-ahead search of thousands of possible moves. But you can't do that with Go. There are too many possible moves. This post explains the techniques used. Now that they have got these neural networks suggesting possible moves, then 'value-judging' the results, these systems can be applied to other domains. "I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that". BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 00:49:23 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 19:49:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match In-Reply-To: References: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 , Tomaz Kristan wrote: ?> ? > Whatever is achieved, there will be a smart ass saying that this is > nothing special. Something else should do. And then, this something else > becomes nothing special, as soon as it's done. > ?Yes they? ?keep moving the goal posts and say that true AI is whatever computers aren't good at *YET*. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Mar 10 01:22:36 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 17:22:36 -0800 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match In-Reply-To: References: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> Message-ID: <007401d17a6b$55ae2320$010a6960$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dave Sill Sent: Wednesday, March 09, 2016 12:13 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 2:39 PM, spike > wrote: I see this as encouraging however. It indicates to me that everything we think of as intelligence has some kind of algorithm behind it, and that the algorithm can be discovered. If not, something that works in place of whatever our brains are doing is discoverable. >?If all you want is a system that can play chess or go, that's clearly doable. But these are more simulated intelligence than artificial intelligence? Ja. Any task transitions from intelligence to simulated intelligence the minute we figure out the algorithm to do it. >? Produce a system that can be taught any game the way a human learns it, and can learn to play it well via playing and studying the game, and *that* will be AI?-Dave On the contrary sir, for this has been done, first with tic-tac-toe and later with checkers. I haven?t checked on later progress, but I think the algorithms never get all that good just by looking at games. We have learning chess programs, and very simple versions of a learning program: ones which only track which openings they used and how the game came out. I don?t know this for sure, but I think most of the modern chess programs choose lines in their human-derived opening book based on how well it works. This is a form of learning. Siri is already smarter and a better conversationalist than most teenagers, most of whom seem to communicate using a lookup table. The point is we *still* don?t have a working definition for what is machine intelligence, for we insist on constantly moving the goalposts. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From brent.allsop at canonizer.com Thu Mar 10 02:36:39 2016 From: brent.allsop at canonizer.com (Brent Allsop) Date: Wed, 9 Mar 2016 19:36:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match In-Reply-To: References: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> Message-ID: <56E0DDB7.4030604@canonizer.com> I think most intelligent people would agree that ones and zeros can represent anything dealing with intelligence and that there by computers can also soon be designed to function like anything - especially within younger populations and especially in this crowd. (anyone here think differently?) Design a computer to be good at a game - meh - we've been there done that. But what Is very interesting is we should be seeking to be able to design a simple intelligent something, or even just a camera, for that matter, that represents redness and greenness, (not with ones and zeros) but with something that is simply qualitatively inverted from what I represent those two with. And I want to be able to understand enough about it so that I can reliably predict and demonstrate to you whether or not it is also inverted from, or would it be more the same as your elemental redness and greenness. I bet we'll all be very surprised about the the significant elemental differences we'll discover in the qualia we all use to represent reality with, once we simply start being interested in and asking the right questions in a effing of the ineffable way. The only interesting question remaining is, what is it that has my elemental redness quality, and does your brain use the same thing to represent your redness with, or does it use something different? That "goal post" um I mean your knowledge of that red strawberry, is sitting right in front of your knowledge of your face, if we'd just think about it in the right qualitative way. Brent Allsop On 3/9/2016 5:49 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 , Tomaz Kristan >wrote: > > ? > ? > Whatever is achieved, there will be a smart ass saying that this > is nothing special. Something else should do. And then, this > something else becomes nothing special, as soon as it's done. > > > ?Yes they? > ? keep moving the goal posts and say that true AI is whatever > computers aren't good at *YET*. > > 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 Thu Mar 10 09:15:38 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:15:38 +0100 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match In-Reply-To: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> References: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> Message-ID: <56E13B3A.7050308@aleph.se> On 2016-03-09 20:39, spike wrote: > I am seeing a replay of what computers were doing in chess in the > 1990s. We were persistently astonished at how good those things were > getting. They didn't exhibit the usual human pattern of steady growth > with a fairly sudden (and persistent) leveling of ability at some point. If you look at the growth of the maximal computer chess Elo scores in this era, it was essentially a straight line, starting way below the master human level - however, since it is the difference that determines the probability of winning, the linear increase implied a quick (about a decade) shift from humans nearly certain of winning to computers nearly certain of winning. You can see plots on slide 28 of this presentation: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/50947659/Artificial%20intelligence%20OMS.pdf William's question about learning curves is partially answered by the previous slide, 27, which shows some plots from DeepMind's IMHO even more impressive Atari game player. Over time scores increase n a convex curve not too dissimilar to a human learning curve. The important issue here is rather the generalisation ability: the same system can learn many different games. However, what it is lacking is the ability to learn them all at the same time or transfer skills from one game to the next. On page 29 I have some plots from Katja Grace's excellent review, which points out that algorithmic improvements typically produce pretty drastic jumps in capability, unlike the individual learning curve or the gradual collective improvement in chess. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From pharos at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 11:49:40 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:49:40 +0000 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind Wins Pivotal Second Game In Match With Go Grandmaster Message-ID: After more than four hours of tight play and a rapid-fire end game, Google?s artificially intelligent Go-playing computer system has won a second contest against grandmaster Lee Sedol, taking a two-games-to-none lead in their historic best-of-five match in downtown Seoul. Quote: A New Autonomy This is particularly true of AlphaGo, which is driven so heavily by machine learning?technologies that allow it to learn tasks largely on its own. Hassabis and his team originally built AlphaGo using what are called deep neural networks, vast networks of hardware and software that mimic the web of neurons in the human brain. Essentially, they taught AlphaGo to play the game by feeding thousands upon thousands of human Go moves into these neural networks. But then, using a technique called reinforcement learning, they matched AlphaGo against itself. By playing match after match on its own, the system could learn to play at an even higher level?perhaps at a level that eclipses the skills of any human. That?s why it produces such unexpected moves. During the match, the commentators even invited DeepMind research scientist Thore Graepel onto their stage to explain the system?s rather autonomous nature. ?Although we have programmed this machine to play, we have no idea what moves it will come up with,? Graepel said. ?Its moves are an emergent phenomenon from the training. We just create the data sets and the training algorithms. But the moves it then comes up with are out of our hands?and much better than we, as Go players, could come up with.? ------------ This really sounds like a big leap forward in AI. BillK From sparge at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 13:07:24 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 08:07:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match In-Reply-To: <007401d17a6b$55ae2320$010a6960$@att.net> References: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> <007401d17a6b$55ae2320$010a6960$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 8:22 PM, spike wrote: > > Dave Sill wrote: > > >?If all you want is a system that can play chess or go, that's clearly > doable. But these are more simulated intelligence than artificial > intelligence? > > Ja. Any task transitions from intelligence to simulated intelligence the > minute we figure out the algorithm to do it. > No, that's not what I mean. Building a table of all of the possible tic-tac-toe games and playing perfectly by consulting it isn't intelligence. Intelligence is determining that by constructing such a table one can play perfectly. > >? Produce a system that can be taught any game the way a human learns it, > and can learn to play it well via playing and studying the game, and *that* > will be AI?-Dave > > > > On the contrary sir, for this has been done, first with tic-tac-toe and > later with checkers. I haven?t checked on later progress, but I think the > algorithms never get all that good just by looking at games. > Firstly, no, this hasn't been done. I said "Produce a system that can be taught any game the way a human learns it". Has not been done. Second, the fact that "algorithms never get all that good just by looking at games" is exactly my point: there's no inherent intelligence in the algorithms. Siri is already smarter and a better conversationalist than most teenagers, > most of whom seem to communicate using a lookup table. The point is we * > *still** don?t have a working definition for what is machine > intelligence, for we insist on constantly moving the goalposts. > Doing something that seems clever but isn't really is a neat trick, but human-level intelligence is much, much more than that. The goalposts haven't moved, we just haven't made any real progress in AI. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 13:21:27 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 08:21:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match In-Reply-To: References: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 3:45 PM, BillK wrote: > > DeepMind *did* teach itself to play Go better. > No, its programmers "taught" it learn how to play better. It didn't say "Hey, you know what would help me play better? Neural networks that learn from zillions of simulated games which kinds of moves work. Hang on...OK that's done." AlphaGo is a Go idiot savant. It's a special-purpose human construction that can do one thing well, but can't do anything else, and doesn't really understand what it's doing. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 13:36:38 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:36:38 +0000 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match In-Reply-To: References: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> Message-ID: On 10 March 2016 at 13:21, Dave Sill wrote: > On Wed, Mar 9, 2016 at 3:45 PM, BillK wrote: >> DeepMind *did* teach itself to play Go better. > > > No, its programmers "taught" it learn how to play better. It didn't say > "Hey, you know what would help me play better? Neural networks that learn > from zillions of simulated games which kinds of moves work. Hang on...OK > that's done." AlphaGo is a Go idiot savant. It's a special-purpose human > construction that can do one thing well, but can't do anything else, and > doesn't really understand what it's doing. > Ah, I see, You've moved the goalposts for AI to a self-conscious, independent, 'any type of problem' intelligence. You might have to wait a few weeks for the current AI to get there. :) AI is already 'better-than-human' in the fields that it has tackled. BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 15:01:26 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:01:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match In-Reply-To: References: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Dave Sill wrote: ?> ? > No, its programmers "taught" it learn how to play better. > ?So Einstein should get no credit for discovering General Relativity, the entire credit? ?should go to Einstein's teachers. But no that can't be right, the credit should go to the teachers of Einstein's teachers. But no that can't be right.... Incidentally the Google program just beat the greatest human GO Grandmaster alive for a *SECOND* game in a 5 game match, one more win and it's all over. http://www.wired.com/2016/03/googles-ai-wins-pivotal-game-two-match-go-grandmaster/ ? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 15:28:43 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:28:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match In-Reply-To: References: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:01 AM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Dave Sill wrote: > > ?> ? >> No, its programmers "taught" it learn how to play better. >> > > ?So Einstein should get no credit for discovering General Relativity, the > entire credit? > > ?should go to Einstein's teachers. But no that can't be right, the credit > should go to the teachers of Einstein's teachers. But no that can't be > right.... > No, Einstein's teachers didn't program him to discover fundamental theories of physics. They taught him what they knew and gave him the tools he needed, but the insight was his. Thousands of other physicists had the same training but didn't discover GR. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From protokol2020 at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 15:51:42 2016 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:51:42 +0100 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match In-Reply-To: References: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> Message-ID: > but the insight was his Exactly as the 23rd AlphaGo's move today was its insight. People of Google/DeepMind just gave him the necessary tools. But you can't understand this mister Sill, unless you rewrite your worldview. Don't bother. On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:01 AM, John Clark wrote: > >> >> >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Dave Sill wrote: >> >> ?> ? >>> No, its programmers "taught" it learn how to play better. >>> >> >> ?So Einstein should get no credit for discovering General Relativity, the >> entire credit? >> >> ?should go to Einstein's teachers. But no that can't be right, the credit >> should go to the teachers of Einstein's teachers. But no that can't be >> right.... >> > > No, Einstein's teachers didn't program him to discover fundamental > theories of physics. They taught him what they knew and gave him the tools > he needed, but the insight was his. Thousands of other physicists had the > same training but didn't discover GR. > > -Dave > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 17:26:22 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:26:22 -0600 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match In-Reply-To: References: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> Message-ID: Anders: On page 29 I have some plots from Katja Grace's excellent review, which points out that algorithmic improvements typically produce pretty drastic jumps in capability, unlike the individual learning curve or the gradual collective improvement in chess. Anders, does this mean that an AI can exhibit insight learning? That is, learning that proceeds through saltatory leaps - in humans we would call those aha moments - insight? Or did the paragraph above say just that? For a true insight curve it would have to start out rather flat (meaning no insight yet). bill w On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:51 AM, Tomaz Kristan wrote: > > but the insight was his > > Exactly as the 23rd AlphaGo's move today was its insight. People of > Google/DeepMind just gave him the necessary tools. > > But you can't understand this mister Sill, unless you rewrite your > worldview. Don't bother. > > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 4:28 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:01 AM, John Clark >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 8:21 AM, Dave Sill wrote: >>> >>> ?> ? >>>> No, its programmers "taught" it learn how to play better. >>>> >>> >>> ?So Einstein should get no credit for discovering General Relativity, >>> the entire credit? >>> >>> ?should go to Einstein's teachers. But no that can't be right, the >>> credit should go to the teachers of Einstein's teachers. But no that can't >>> be right.... >>> >> >> No, Einstein's teachers didn't program him to discover fundamental >> theories of physics. They taught him what they knew and gave him the tools >> he needed, but the insight was his. Thousands of other physicists had the >> same training but didn't discover GR. >> >> -Dave >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 17:40:18 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 12:40:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match In-Reply-To: References: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:51 AM, Tomaz Kristan wrote: > But you can't understand this mister Sill, unless you rewrite your > worldview. Don't bother. > No need to be a dick. I understand that AlphaGo is a nontrivial accomplishment, but I don't think it tells us much about how to achieve general intelligence, which seems to be a vastly harder and more important goal. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pjmanney at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 18:01:44 2016 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:01:44 -0800 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: <003301d175cf$33ba1c10$9b2e5430$@att.net> References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> <003301d175cf$33ba1c10$9b2e5430$@att.net> Message-ID: I am disappointed in many people on this list and how they responded to this story. Your lack of information and empathy is mind-boggling. Your assumptions, based on absolutely nothing more than your biases and intellectual compulsions, are a big reason few women participate in this forum. The biases usually manifests in subtler ways that I personally couldn't care less about, and are not worthy of reply, but this was a doozy that demanded response. Here is the follow-up: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/business/media/erin-andrews-awarded-55-million-in-lawsuit-over-nude-video-at-hotel.html http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/sports/erin-andrews-dangers-of-being-female-sportscaster.html Yes, she won. And for a damn good reason. If you actually RESEARCHED THE CASE, Marriott was sued because they not only told the perpetrator which room Erin Andrews was staying in, they allowed him to book the adjoining room, so he could monitor her. It had little to do with peephole technology or other ways of invading the room. They broke their own privacy policies at the front desk, and facilitated a stalker causing her great pain and career trauma. If you think being a woman and having naked pictures of yourself on the Internet against your will sound like fun, you have no empathy. It can destroy a person's life. And if you think trying to be taken seriously in a male-dominated industry with those nude videos floating around sounds easy, you're nuts. Marriott, and every hotel chain in the world, needs to learn a lesson here. They make women less safe. She deserved every penny to get them to feel the pain and reinforce their policies. The perp plead guilty to the criminal charges and he has already served 2 years time. Her more recent civil suit also included him. This is the second case. Really, was finding this information that hard, that you had to make up little stories to demean Andrews? I recommend you click on the comments in the second article, click the "Reader's Pick" tab and educate yourself. Stalking happens to every woman you know, regardless of age, "attractiveness," fame, or status. As Margaret Atwood famously said, "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them." Women have a fear of rape or murder lurking at the back of the minds every day. If they say they don't, they're trying not to alarm you, or sound whiny, or they rarely leave the house. If you think that's something that should change, try becoming part of a solution, and not part of the mansplaining mythologizing that demeans women and their life experiences. Would you have said the same things if the victim was your mother? Your sister? Your wife? Your daughter? PJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 18:04:42 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:04:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Artificial art? Message-ID: This is very cool: http://www.boredpanda.com/inceptionism-neural-network-deep-dream-art/ Ties in with the AlphaGo talk. Is this art? Yeah, sure... But it's closer to manipulating images with a filter than it is to a real artist creating something from memory, imagination, or even a sketch. Also, it's not clear just how much credit for the results goes to the neural net vs. the human who fed it the input and possibly tweaked the output. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 18:09:42 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:09:42 -0500 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match In-Reply-To: References: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:28 AM, Dave Sill wrote: ? >> ?>> ? >> So Einstein should get no credit for discovering General Relativity, the >> entire credit? >> >> ?should go to Einstein's teachers. But no that can't be right, the credit >> should go to the teachers of Einstein's teachers. But no that can't be >> right.... >> > > > ?> ? > No, Einstein's teachers didn't program him to discover fundamental > theories of physics. > ?And the Google ?people didn't program AlphaGo to be better GO players than they were because they didn't have that ability. Instead AlphaGo learned and got better in exactly precisely the same way that novice human GO players do, it studied the games of previous grandmasters and constantly played games against itself; the only difference is the machine learned better and faster than a human could. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 18:33:06 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 10:33:06 -0800 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> <003301d175cf$33ba1c10$9b2e5430$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 10, 2016 10:02 AM, "PJ Manney" wrote: > If you actually RESEARCHED THE CASE, Marriott was sued because they not only told the perpetrator which room Erin Andrews was staying in, they allowed him to book the adjoining room, so he could monitor her. It had little to do with peephole technology or other ways of invading the room. They broke their own privacy policies at the front desk, and facilitated a stalker causing her great pain and career trauma. Thanks for the follow up. This case was indeed not seemed worthy of research: it does not affect us or anyone we know of. If the hotel did actively help the stalker, rather than passively and ignorantly allow as had previously been stated, then yes they deserved to lose every penny of that judgment, and more. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlatorra at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 18:37:27 2016 From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 13:37:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> <003301d175cf$33ba1c10$9b2e5430$@att.net> Message-ID: Bravo, PJ Manney! You have said what must be said. And said repeatedly. Regards, Mike LaTorra On Mar 10, 2016 1:02 PM, "PJ Manney" wrote: > I am disappointed in many people on this list and how they responded to > this story. Your lack of information and empathy is mind-boggling. Your > assumptions, based on absolutely nothing more than your biases and > intellectual compulsions, are a big reason few women participate in this > forum. The biases usually manifests in subtler ways that I personally > couldn't care less about, and are not worthy of reply, but this was a doozy > that demanded response. > > Here is the follow-up: > > http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/08/business/media/erin-andrews-awarded-55-million-in-lawsuit-over-nude-video-at-hotel.html > > http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/10/sports/erin-andrews-dangers-of-being-female-sportscaster.html > > Yes, she won. And for a damn good reason. > > If you actually RESEARCHED THE CASE, Marriott was sued because they not > only told the perpetrator which room Erin Andrews was staying in, they > allowed him to book the adjoining room, so he could monitor her. It had > little to do with peephole technology or other ways of invading the room. > They broke their own privacy policies at the front desk, and facilitated a > stalker causing her great pain and career trauma. If you think being a > woman and having naked pictures of yourself on the Internet against your > will sound like fun, you have no empathy. It can destroy a person's life. > And if you think trying to be taken seriously in a male-dominated industry > with those nude videos floating around sounds easy, you're nuts. Marriott, > and every hotel chain in the world, needs to learn a lesson here. They make > women less safe. She deserved every penny to get them to feel the pain and > reinforce their policies. > > The perp plead guilty to the criminal charges and he has already served 2 > years time. Her more recent civil suit also included him. This is the > second case. > > Really, was finding this information that hard, that you had to make up > little stories to demean Andrews? > > I recommend you click on the comments in the second article, click the > "Reader's Pick" tab and educate yourself. Stalking happens to every woman > you know, regardless of age, "attractiveness," fame, or status. As Margaret > Atwood famously said, "Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women > are afraid that men will kill them." > > Women have a fear of rape or murder lurking at the back of the minds every > day. If they say they don't, they're trying not to alarm you, or sound > whiny, or they rarely leave the house. If you think that's something that > should change, try becoming part of a solution, and not part of the > mansplaining mythologizing that demeans women and their life experiences. > Would you have said the same things if the victim was your mother? Your > sister? Your wife? Your daughter? > > PJ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mar 10 19:30:46 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 20:30:46 +0100 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match In-Reply-To: References: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> Message-ID: <56E1CB66.8010504@aleph.se> On 2016-03-10 18:26, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Anders: On page 29 I have some plots from Katja Grace's excellent > review, which points out that algorithmic improvements typically > produce pretty drastic jumps in capability, unlike the individual > learning curve or the gradual collective improvement in chess. > > Anders, does this mean that an AI can exhibit insight learning? That > is, learning that proceeds through saltatory leaps - in humans we > would call those aha moments - insight? Or did the paragraph above > say just that? For a true insight curve it would have to start out > rather flat (meaning no insight yet). Nah, the page 29 diagram is what algorithms do over time as humans have insights and improve them. But actually, when you run some learning algorithms on some problems, you see jumps due to "insights" with flattish plateaus between. My favorite example is genetic algorithms like Avida on complex fitness landscapes - when they find good tricks they jump. Now, proper insight learning in AI is mainly something people are modelling rather than doing, as far as I know. -- 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 Mar 10 19:25:33 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 11:25:33 -0800 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match In-Reply-To: References: <007301d17a3b$704defb0$50e9cf10$@att.net> Message-ID: <014201d17b02$9e7517c0$db5f4740$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match >?Anders: On page 29 I have some plots from Katja Grace's excellent review, which points out that algorithmic improvements typically produce pretty drastic jumps in capability, unlike the individual learning curve or the gradual collective improvement in chess. bill w Specific to chess software, there is something really cool: we can use it to discover if humans have gotten better over the past couple centuries. Reason: games were recorded. We can run the software in analysis mode and discover that some of the famous games from the past were flawed. We can find that humans have gotten better. Explanation: a chess game is a classic beauty if a high rated player appears to do nothing wrong but gets his butt kicked anyway. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From natasha at natasha.cc Thu Mar 10 23:08:14 2016 From: natasha at natasha.cc (natasha at natasha.cc) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 16:08:14 -0700 Subject: [ExI] privacy again Message-ID: <20160310160814.d116f5e08926a7036dd11a0a743afc19.08c40a6d1a.wbe@email17.secureserver.net> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pjmanney at gmail.com Fri Mar 11 01:04:21 2016 From: pjmanney at gmail.com (PJ Manney) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:04:21 -0800 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> <003301d175cf$33ba1c10$9b2e5430$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > Thanks for the follow up. This case was indeed not seemed worthy of > research: it does not affect us or anyone we know of. If the hotel did > actively help the stalker, rather than passively and ignorantly allow as > had previously been stated, then yes they deserved to lose every penny of > that judgment, and more. > On the contrary: it does not only affect famous women. That was the point. It affects 50% of the population and I'm sure you know quite a few women who have been stalked. In fact, almost every adult woman by a certain age has been, whether for short times as they are followed through the streets or buildings, or for longer times, via communication and technology. Read the comments on the second article. You will find women in every walk of life commenting on how they were stalked while traveling for business, like Andrews. Or just by living every day, surrounded by men without empathy or boundaries. There are more of them than people think. PJ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Mar 11 01:14:47 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:14:47 -0600 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> <003301d175cf$33ba1c10$9b2e5430$@att.net> Message-ID: I have been a feminist since the 1970s, so you have my support in full. But it actually doesn't matter that it was a woman. Privacy should be respected no matter whom is involved. I am no historian but I think privacy was a huge battle in the 1770s and later as our government was put together, and the strict privacy people lost. bill w On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:04 PM, PJ Manney wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> >> Thanks for the follow up. This case was indeed not seemed worthy of >> research: it does not affect us or anyone we know of. If the hotel did >> actively help the stalker, rather than passively and ignorantly allow as >> had previously been stated, then yes they deserved to lose every penny of >> that judgment, and more. >> > On the contrary: it does not only affect famous women. That was the point. > It affects 50% of the population and I'm sure you know quite a few women > who have been stalked. In fact, almost every adult woman by a certain age > has been, whether for short times as they are followed through the streets > or buildings, or for longer times, via communication and technology. Read > the comments on the second article. You will find women in every walk of > life commenting on how they were stalked while traveling for business, like > Andrews. Or just by living every day, surrounded by men without empathy or > boundaries. There are more of them than people think. > > PJ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mar 11 01:18:18 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:18:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> <003301d175cf$33ba1c10$9b2e5430$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 5:04 PM, PJ Manney wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> >> Thanks for the follow up. This case was indeed not seemed worthy of >> research: it does not affect us or anyone we know of. If the hotel did >> actively help the stalker, rather than passively and ignorantly allow as >> had previously been stated, then yes they deserved to lose every penny of >> that judgment, and more. >> > On the contrary: it does not only affect famous women. That was the point. > It affects 50% of the population > Please don't put words in my mouth. It harms the cause you are promoting. I said "this case". Whatever the symbolic effects may be, no matter how many others suffer similar problems, it is plain fact that far less than 50% of the population is directly involved in this particular case. Pretending that I am speaking about the entire issue, when I clearly limited my comment to the direct consequences of this one case, makes you come off as the enemy of those who would otherwise agree with you. It is stereotypical of so-called Social Justice Warriors, and that this happens is one of the rallying cries of those who would denounce people like you. You will get better results if you double-check what you are responding to before assuming. I believe the phrase is, "check your privilege"? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlatorra at gmail.com Fri Mar 11 01:23:14 2016 From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 20:23:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> <003301d175cf$33ba1c10$9b2e5430$@att.net> Message-ID: Speaking as a man, and wanting to get this in before any other guy comments about it, I don't want any man here to feel that he is being personally attacked. Not all men are stalkers. Not even most men. But the minority of male malefactors looms large for all women because they are SO persistent and are often REPEAT OFFENDERS. This fact was made startlingly clear to me through the research of Geoffrey Miller, who is a professor specializing in the evolutionary psychology of mating behaviors. The fraction of the male population who stalk and harm women is overrepresented in terms of their interactions with women. ALL women. So even though most men don't do this stuff, the men who do seem to comprise a huge percentage of the male population from women's point of view because they pop up often and everywhere in women's lives. I myself have called the cops on stalkers and wife beaters more than once. If you see something, say something. It's the right thing to do. Regards, Mike LaTorra On Mar 10, 2016 8:05 PM, "PJ Manney" wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> >> Thanks for the follow up. This case was indeed not seemed worthy of >> research: it does not affect us or anyone we know of. If the hotel did >> actively help the stalker, rather than passively and ignorantly allow as >> had previously been stated, then yes they deserved to lose every penny of >> that judgment, and more. >> > On the contrary: it does not only affect famous women. That was the point. > It affects 50% of the population and I'm sure you know quite a few women > who have been stalked. In fact, almost every adult woman by a certain age > has been, whether for short times as they are followed through the streets > or buildings, or for longer times, via communication and technology. Read > the comments on the second article. You will find women in every walk of > life commenting on how they were stalked while traveling for business, like > Andrews. Or just by living every day, surrounded by men without empathy or > boundaries. There are more of them than people think. > > PJ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mar 11 01:26:28 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 17:26:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Last week's travels Message-ID: Last week was brutal. Mon. and Tue. in Chattanooga, TN for the Tennessee Valley Interstellar Workshop. Most of my time went into the workshop sections on Power Satellites run by Robert Kennedy and Peter Garretson. Wed. morning I visited the people at the Arnold Engineering Development Complex who built and operate a 50 MW arcjet. They confirmed the figures I have been using about efficiency, mass.and life expectancy. This 1967 paper applies http://alfven.princeton.edu/papers/magnetarc.pdf Late in the day I got on a plane to London which got me there around Thursday noon. Stayed the night at the Railway Inn, next to the Culham train stop. Spent two hours the next morning talking to the whole engineering staff of Reaction Engines. Me to them was mostly a pep talk on using Skylon for building power satellites, ending the CO2 build up and getting off fossil fuels with cheap energy from space. Them to me was a lengthy discussion about how fast production rates could put pushed up to around 1700 vehicles a year. The conclusion is it can be done. They already have the vacuum brazing furnace which could make precoolers for some tens of Skylons per month. Sat flew back. Had an awful time from SFO to San Diego. Rain was coming down in buckets at San Francisco. The weather was so foggy in San Diego that we aborted the first landing attempt. Planes don't carry enough fuel to try again *and* divert, so we had to fly up to LA for more fuel. Landed on the second try. Fortunately the age reversing treatments I have been on worked. I would not have been able to do this a few years ago before Regenexx rebuilt my back. Have made serious progress in the last few days refining the LEO to GEO cost model with the propulsion power plants in space. Normally the cost to GEO using chemical fuels is about 2.5 times the cost in LEO. This adds about $180/kg to the $120 in LEO. That's too much for power satellites to undercut coal. The previous model using microwaves from the ground to power arcjets cost about $75/kg, making the total less than the maximum of $200/kg but not much. Using space based power plants to power the transport gets the LEO to GEO incremental cost down to somewhat less than $30/kg. It also cut ~$15 B of the startup cost. I don't post about power satellites on this list very often. If you are interested in following what's going on, subscribe to the Google group power satellite economics. From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Mar 11 02:02:03 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 18:02:03 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Moving goal posts? Message-ID: A point about the 'moving goal posts' argument in AI discussions: I don't think it's always applied correctly or that it's a strong argument. Where do I feel it's incorrectly applied from the start? When the presumption is that everyone already agrees that X would be a sound indicator of intelligence and then someone accuses the [AI] skeptic of moving the goal posts. (X can be playing chess at a grandmaster level, for instance.) For it to be applied correctly, the accuser would have to show the accused really believed that X was a good indicator and only changed their mind because X has been achieved. I don't also think it [moving goal posts] is a strong argument because the nature of intelligence and of figuring out how to detect it is not clear from the start. I think there might be good reasons in some cases -- not all -- to really admit one thought X would be an indicator of intelligence, but then when X is achieved, perhaps by the method of achieving it (think of many automated reasoning tools) isn't really doing anything intelligence. In other words, one has good reason to believe that the presumption might be wrong. Anyhow, this doesn't mean moving goal posts is always tarnished, but I do feel it's used too much -- as if merely stating it banished any doubts save for them held by the most pigheaded skeptics. 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 Mar 11 02:02:41 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 20:02:41 -0600 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> <003301d175cf$33ba1c10$9b2e5430$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 7:23 PM, Michael LaTorra wrote: > Speaking as a man, and wanting to get this in before any other guy > comments about it, I don't want any man here to feel that he is being > personally attacked. Not all men are stalkers. Not even most men. But the > minority of male malefactors looms large for all women because they are SO > persistent and are often REPEAT OFFENDERS. This fact was made startlingly > clear to me through the research of Geoffrey Miller, who is a professor > specializing in the evolutionary psychology of mating behaviors. The > fraction of the male population who stalk and harm women is overrepresented > in terms of their interactions with women. ALL women. So even though most > men don't do this stuff, the men who do seem to comprise a huge percentage > of the male population from women's point of view because they pop up often > and everywhere in women's lives. > > I myself have called the cops on stalkers and wife beaters more than once. > If you see something, say something. It's the right thing to do. > > Regards, > Mike LaTorra > ?Two things: 1 - we tend to blame psychopaths for these types of behaviors and rightly so, but 2 - there are those who are madly in love with some woman and want total control of her. Also, if you can remember being madly in love with someone, perhaps in your late teenage years or early 20s, it is highly irrational. You think that you own this person ('they are MINE!'). Very obsessive in nature. It is fated if only she would understand that. Well, I am not going to write a book about this, but let's keep in mind that these men are small minorities of all men, so I plead with women not to look at every man and assume that given certain circumstances he could be this stalker or rapist or controller. Yes, they are out there and be careful of men who tend to be glib and charming and extroverted. And liars. OH well, I 'll stop. bill w? On Mar 10, 2016 8:05 PM, "PJ Ma > ? ? > nney" wrote: > >> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >>> >>> Thanks for the follow up. This case was indeed not seemed worthy of >>> research: it does not affect us or anyone we know of. If the hotel did >>> actively help the stalker, rather than passively and ignorantly allow as >>> had previously been stated, then yes they deserved to lose every penny of >>> that judgment, and more. >>> >> On the contrary: it does not only affect famous women. That was the >> point. It affects 50% of the population and I'm sure you know quite a few >> women who have been stalked. In fact, almost every adult woman by a certain >> age has been, whether for short times as they are followed through the >> streets or buildings, or for longer times, via communication and >> technology. Read the comments on the second article. You will find women in >> every walk of life commenting on how they were stalked while traveling for >> business, like Andrews. Or just by living every day, surrounded by men >> without empathy or boundaries. There are more of them than people think. >> >> PJ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Fri Mar 11 02:51:05 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 18:51:05 -0800 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> <003301d175cf$33ba1c10$9b2e5430$@att.net> Message-ID: <00e001d17b40$dbf78450$93e68cf0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of PJ Manney Sent: Thursday, March 10, 2016 5:04 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:33 AM, Adrian Tymes > wrote: Thanks for the follow up. This case was indeed not seemed worthy of research: it does not affect us or anyone we know of. If the hotel did actively help the stalker, rather than passively and ignorantly allow as had previously been stated, then yes they deserved to lose every penny of that judgment, and more. >?On the contrary: it does not only affect famous women. That was the point. It affects 50% of the population and I'm sure you know quite a few women who have been stalked. In fact, almost every adult woman by a certain age has been, whether for short times as they are followed through the streets or buildings, or for longer times, via communication and technology. Read the comments on the second article. You will find women in every walk of life commenting on how they were stalked while traveling for business, like Andrews. Or just by living every day, surrounded by men without empathy or boundaries. There are more of them than people think. PJ Ja. We need not exclude men from the potential victims of stalkers however. It doesn?t usually, but it can go either way. There are women without empathy or boundaries but with handguns in their purses, and men for that matter, stalking men, or women can stalk women too. The hotel gave away information on the location of a particular guest. Now we can be sure that hotels will never do that again, but we can extend the whole concept. It is easy enough to imagine professional people-watchers who report on the whereabouts of whoever is popular enough to sell ad space on a website dedicated to reporting the location of anyone. It is a little like a person who takes photos of celebrities for magazines (how bizarre is that?) A device could be set up with automated face recognition or human-assisted motion detector activated recognition. Imagers are cheap enough that proles could set them up in hotels and figure out which room any person of interest is temporarily inhabiting, then something like an endoscope could be used to go under the door to create video without the theatrics of removing the peephole. Or it could be that society just starts tracking the whereabouts of others, with no particular motive, other than we can now. This whole case may have spawned an industry. All privacy in any public space is gone. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From clementlawyer at gmail.com Fri Mar 11 03:17:32 2016 From: clementlawyer at gmail.com (James Clement) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:17:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> <003301d175cf$33ba1c10$9b2e5430$@att.net> Message-ID: William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I have been a feminist since the 1970s, so you have my support in full. > But it actually doesn't matter that it was a woman. Privacy should be > respected no matter whom is involved. I am no historian but I think > privacy was a huge battle in the 1770s and later as our government was put > together, and the strict privacy people lost. > > bill w > We were required in my Constitutional Law class in law school to read the Warren & Brandeis article, "The Right to Privacy," published in the Harvard Law Review in 1890. It remains one of the best discussions on the subject to date. I highly recommend anyone who hasn't read it before to do so. http://faculty.uml.edu/sgallagher/Brandeisprivacy.htm Cheers, James -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Mar 11 03:54:17 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 19:54:17 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Moving goal posts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Would it be an acceptable indicator of true AI, if said AI could accurately predict where the commonly accepted goal posts to prove true AI will be moved to next? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Mar 11 05:41:54 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 21:41:54 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Moving goal posts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 10, 2016, at 7:54 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > Would it be an acceptable indicator of true AI, if said AI could accurately predict where the commonly accepted goal posts to prove true AI will be moved to next? I believe a _valid_ goal post would have to be based on more than being snarky. ;) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Mar 11 08:58:02 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 03:58:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: <00e001d17b40$dbf78450$93e68cf0$@att.net> References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> <003301d175cf$33ba1c10$9b2e5430$@att.net> <00e001d17b40$dbf78450$93e68cf0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:51 PM, spike wrote: > > > The hotel gave away information on the location of a particular guest. > Now we can be sure that hotels will never do that again, but we can extend > the whole concept. > ### The hotel had deep pockets, so it became a target. The problem with allowing the tort system to inflict insane and disproportionate amounts of damage to economic players is that it has wide-ranging and persistent effects on the economy. We all have to pay for the foolishness, either by increased hotel prices, or by having to put up with inconvenient, defensive behaviors of the targeted industry. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Mar 11 09:36:47 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 04:36:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Morphological freedom In-Reply-To: <56D023C2.10904@aleph.se> References: <56CEDB42.7040703@aleph.se> <56D023C2.10904@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > > Note that wards do not lose all their rights; their protector can only > legitimately impose things on them compatible with the set of rights they > retain because of their capacities. Morphological freedom is generally a > complex right requiring full freedom, so the wards might not enjoy it if > they do not enjoy their freedom right. But the limitation of freedom of a > ward does not mean freedom is not inalienable (just that the expression of > freedom may sometimes legitimately be constrained). > > ### Having your rights legitimately constrained still does take them away, doesn't it? And for some types of wards the constraint persists indefinitely in time. Outside of a Platonic realm, rights are given or taken, and not intrinsic or unalterable. Is ethics more like mathematics, the permanent realm, or physics, the temporal realm? I tend to see ethics as a set of insights from analysis of real-world interactions. This makes me rather wary of the notion of inalienable properties. In the real world new discoveries are possible, upsetting existing certainties. --------------------- > The suicide argument is fun. I think it does not follow if one grounds MF > in autonomy, since the loss of autonomy in death is different from the loss > of autonomy in self-reduction. ### Is it a true qualitative difference or merely one of degree? ------------------- > But I am not convinced in-group norms make for good ethics (they might > make for good morality), especially if universal ethical principles turn > out to exist. ### If by universal ethical principles you mean applicable to all conceivable communities, then I would proffer that such principles do not exist. You could say that all valid ethical principles must have computable results relevant to their target audiences - but this is more of meta-ethical consideration, maybe even a partial restatement of the definition of ethics. ------------------ > > My own position, relevant to my chosen in-group, is that existing ingroup >> members generally have full ownership rights to their own bodies and minds, >> unless they voluntarily relinquish them (in a meaning much different from >> Carrico's "non-duressed choice"), and this entails the right to modify >> themselves using the resources they have at their disposal. This does not >> entail a duty on others to provide such resources. New members of the >> in-group such as children and other wards should be gifted such ownership >> rights on achieving the age of majority, or be allowed to pay a market >> price to purchase such rights. The details of modification rights should be >> freely tradeable among in-group members. >> > > Sounds nice. As a Bayesian libertarian I generally agree. > > ### I'd be interested in hearing where you disagree, since disagreeing with you offers learning opportunities for me. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From test at ssec.wisc.edu Fri Mar 11 09:53:13 2016 From: test at ssec.wisc.edu (Bill Hibbard) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 03:53:13 -0600 (CST) Subject: [ExI] Humans for Transparency in Artificial Intelligence Message-ID: Article: http://hplusmagazine.com/2016/03/11/transparent-ai/ Petition: http://www.icog-labs.com/transparent_ai/ From anders at aleph.se Fri Mar 11 19:39:27 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 20:39:27 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Extropian optimism art Message-ID: <56E31EEF.8050705@aleph.se> Just came across these ones: https://www.instagram.com/p/_4ivU_vLWV/ https://www.instagram.com/p/_mXTz8vLeR/ Don't know the context. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Mar 11 20:40:31 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 15:40:31 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Moving goal posts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: A point about the 'moving goal posts' argument in AI discussions: I don't > think it's always applied correctly or that it's a strong argument. > ? ? > Where do I feel it's incorrectly applied from the start? When the > presumption is that everyone already agrees that X would be a sound > indicator of intelligence and then someone accuses the [AI] skeptic of > moving the goal posts. > Douglas Hofstadter ?, the author of my all time favorite book ?" G?del Escher Bach ?"? ? made it clear in 1977 that he thought beating a human chess Grandmaster would require true AI, but in 1997 he suddenly changed his mind about that. Then people said the game of GO had astronomically more possible ?moves than chess so brute force won't work and true AI would be required to beat a human champion, but very recently for some reason they've changed their mind about that too. And the same thing could be said about language translation and giving good answers to questions in English. ?> ? > I don't also think it [moving goal posts] is a strong argument because the > nature of intelligence and of figuring out how to detect it is not clear > from the start. > ?I do admit that in the 1950s the AI stuff they thought would be ? difficult (like solving equations) turned out to be easy and the stuff they thought would be easy (like image recognition and manual dexterity) turned out to be hard; but the number of things computers are really bad at gets smaller every day and before long it will reach zero. ?>? > this doesn't mean moving goal posts is always tarnished ?It does if the only reason for moving the goal post is that AI just scored an unexpected touchdown. John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Mar 12 01:33:47 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 19:33:47 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Morphological freedom In-Reply-To: References: <56CEDB42.7040703@aleph.se> <56D023C2.10904@aleph.se> Message-ID: The dictionary says that ethics pertains to business and professions. While that may be somewhat limiting, just think of all the businesses and professions and other jobs that have been created in the last hundred years that never existed before. So ethics had to be created every time some new thing appeared. I think it's unlikely that you can take the ethics from one position and totally apply it to another, say, from being a federal judge to being a music composer. Thus every one is to a certain extent, unique. Morals, on the other hand, are far more generalizable, eh? bill w On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 3:36 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 5:06 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: >> >> >> Note that wards do not lose all their rights; their protector can only >> legitimately impose things on them compatible with the set of rights they >> retain because of their capacities. Morphological freedom is generally a >> complex right requiring full freedom, so the wards might not enjoy it if >> they do not enjoy their freedom right. But the limitation of freedom of a >> ward does not mean freedom is not inalienable (just that the expression of >> freedom may sometimes legitimately be constrained). >> >> ### Having your rights legitimately constrained still does take them > away, doesn't it? And for some types of wards the constraint persists > indefinitely in time. Outside of a Platonic realm, rights are given or > taken, and not intrinsic or unalterable. > > Is ethics more like mathematics, the permanent realm, or physics, the > temporal realm? > > I tend to see ethics as a set of insights from analysis of real-world > interactions. This makes me rather wary of the notion of inalienable > properties. In the real world new discoveries are possible, upsetting > existing certainties. > --------------------- > > >> The suicide argument is fun. I think it does not follow if one grounds MF >> in autonomy, since the loss of autonomy in death is different from the loss >> of autonomy in self-reduction. > > > ### Is it a true qualitative difference or merely one of degree? > > ------------------- > > >> But I am not convinced in-group norms make for good ethics (they might >> make for good morality), especially if universal ethical principles turn >> out to exist. > > > ### If by universal ethical principles you mean applicable to all > conceivable communities, then I would proffer that such principles do not > exist. You could say that all valid ethical principles must have computable > results relevant to their target audiences - but this is more of > meta-ethical consideration, maybe even a partial restatement of the > definition of ethics. > > ------------------ > >> >> My own position, relevant to my chosen in-group, is that existing ingroup >>> members generally have full ownership rights to their own bodies and minds, >>> unless they voluntarily relinquish them (in a meaning much different from >>> Carrico's "non-duressed choice"), and this entails the right to modify >>> themselves using the resources they have at their disposal. This does not >>> entail a duty on others to provide such resources. New members of the >>> in-group such as children and other wards should be gifted such ownership >>> rights on achieving the age of majority, or be allowed to pay a market >>> price to purchase such rights. The details of modification rights should be >>> freely tradeable among in-group members. >>> >> >> Sounds nice. As a Bayesian libertarian I generally agree. >> >> ### I'd be interested in hearing where you disagree, since disagreeing > with you offers learning opportunities for me. > > 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 clementlawyer at gmail.com Sat Mar 12 02:17:52 2016 From: clementlawyer at gmail.com (James Clement) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 18:17:52 -0800 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> <003301d175cf$33ba1c10$9b2e5430$@att.net> <00e001d17b40$dbf78450$93e68cf0$@att.net> Message-ID: Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: > > ### The hotel had deep pockets, so it became a target. The problem with > allowing the tort system to inflict insane and disproportionate amounts of > damage to economic players is that it has wide-ranging and persistent > effects on the economy. We all have to pay for the foolishness, either by > increased hotel prices, or by having to put up with inconvenient, defensive > behaviors of the targeted industry. > Rafal, Marriott International is a $17 Billion company.with (on average) about $100 million sitting in cash. How would you punish them in order to get them to change their behavior? Thanks, James -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Mar 12 02:59:49 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 11 Mar 2016 18:59:49 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Moving goal posts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 at 12:40 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 9:02 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > >> A point about the 'moving goal posts' argument in AI discussions: I don't think it's always applied correctly or that it's a strong argument. >> Where do I feel it's incorrectly applied from the start? When the presumption is that everyone already agrees that X would be a sound indicator of intelligence and then someone accuses the [AI] skeptic of moving the goal posts. > > > Douglas Hofstadter > , the author of my all time favorite book " > G?del Escher Bach > " > made it clear in 1977 that he thought beating a human chess Grandmaster would > require true AI, but in 1997 he suddenly changed his mind about that. Then people > said the game of GO had astronomically more possible moves than chess so > brute force won't work and true AI would be required to beat a human champion, > but very recently for some reason they've changed their mind about that too. And > the same thing could be said about language translation and giving good answers > to questions in English. Sure, some people do move goal posts. I didn't deny that. I also think sometimes goal posts can be moved for the right reasons -- e.g., the area of interest becomes more conceptually clarified >> I don't also think it [moving goal posts] is a strong argument because the nature >> of intelligence and of figuring out how to detect it is not clear from the start. > > I do admit that in the 1950s the AI stuff they thought would be difficult (like solving > equations) turned out to be easy and the stuff they thought would be easy (like > image recognition and manual dexterity) turned out to be hard;> but the number of > things computers are really bad at gets smaller every day and before long it will > reach zero. That's partly what I was speaking to. Is it perhaps unimaginable that further advances might change the targets here too? Of course, I agree that ever more stuff comes under the explanation via or replication in machines the AI-skeptic has a harder task. (Presuming the skeptic has good reasons for their skepticism, there's no reason they can't simply learn and grow here. My original post was about getting beyond the bald assertion of moving goal posts. I'm not sure if there are many AI-skeptics out there who said a year ago, 'If a machine can play Go at a grandmaster level, that would be evidence of intelligence, but we all know for certain that that'll never happen.' and then said today -- like someone running for president, 'I think playing Go at any level is not evidence of intelligence. In fact, even experts at playing Go now, human ones including, are void of intelligence.' That said, I'd love to see someone be so asinine as that.) >> this doesn't mean moving goal posts is always tarnished > > > It does if the only reason for moving the goal post is that AI just scored an unexpected touchdown. Well, you trimmed out the part where I wrote exactly that: "For [the 'moving goal posts' argument] to be applied correctly, the accuser would have to show the accused really believed that X was a good indicator and only changed their mind because X has been achieved." This is a habit I've noticed with you with regard to me: you chop out a point I made and then post something that either repeats the point you chopped out or, worse, post something that was refuted by the part you chopped out. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sat Mar 12 11:24:37 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 11:24:37 +0000 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins third Go game and the championship Message-ID: Google?s artificially intelligent Go-playing computer system has claimed victory in its historic match with Korean grandmaster Lee Sedol after winning a third straight game in this best-of-five series. Quote: Just two years ago, most experts believed that another decade would pass before a machine could claim this prize. But then researchers at DeepMind?a London AI lab acquired by Google?changed the equation using two increasingly powerful forms of machine learning, technologies that allow machines to learn largely on their own. Lee Sedol is widely regarded as the best Go player of the past decade. But he was beaten by a machine that taught itself to play the ancient game. Machines have conquered the last games. Now comes the real world. ----------- BillK From anders at aleph.se Sat Mar 12 16:57:24 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 17:57:24 +0100 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins third Go game and the championship In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56E44A74.2000603@aleph.se> On 2016-03-12 12:24, BillK wrote: > Machines have conquered the last games. Now comes the real world. Nah, there is still poker. Actually, it is a field of interest in AI since it is an incomplete information game and figuring out player tells is an interesting perception problem. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From giulio at gmail.com Sat Mar 12 17:09:19 2016 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 18:09:19 +0100 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins third Go game and the championship In-Reply-To: <56E44A74.2000603@aleph.se> References: <56E44A74.2000603@aleph.se> Message-ID: But the outcome of poker depends almost only on resources. Give the AI much more money than the other players around the table can afford to lose, and the AI will win. On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 5:57 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 2016-03-12 12:24, BillK wrote: >> >> Machines have conquered the last games. Now comes the real world. > > > Nah, there is still poker. Actually, it is a field of interest in AI since > it is an incomplete information game and figuring out player tells is an > interesting perception problem. > > -- > 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 spike66 at att.net Sat Mar 12 17:03:35 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 09:03:35 -0800 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins third Go game and the championship In-Reply-To: <56E44A74.2000603@aleph.se> References: <56E44A74.2000603@aleph.se> Message-ID: <006801d17c81$1e014480$5a03cd80$@att.net> On 2016-03-12 12:24, BillK wrote: > Machines have conquered the last games. Now comes the real world... BillK In go as in chess, we move from human vs machine to machine vs machine to human plus machine vs human plus machine. With that paradigm, BillK, you know what the next game is, ja? We move into new games: politics. spike From danust2012 at gmail.com Sat Mar 12 17:18:28 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 09:18:28 -0800 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins third Go game and the championship In-Reply-To: References: <56E44A74.2000603@aleph.se> Message-ID: <35F3C0E3-F3FA-408B-AE0A-36CB1DB4E074@gmail.com> On Mar 12, 2016, at 9:09 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > But the outcome of poker depends almost only on resources. Give the AI > much more money than the other players around the table can afford to > lose, and the AI will win. No, and especially not in a limit game. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Mar 12 17:45:24 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 11:45:24 -0600 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins third Go game and the championship In-Reply-To: <35F3C0E3-F3FA-408B-AE0A-36CB1DB4E074@gmail.com> References: <56E44A74.2000603@aleph.se> <35F3C0E3-F3FA-408B-AE0A-36CB1DB4E074@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 11:18 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Mar 12, 2016, at 9:09 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > > But the outcome of poker depends almost only on resources. Give the AI > much more money than the other players around the table can afford to > lose, and the AI will win. > > > No, and especially not in a limit game. > > Regards, > > Dan > ?Is the art of bluffing programmable? bill w ? > Sample my Kindle books via: > http://author.to/DanUst > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mar 12 17:52:44 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 17:52:44 +0000 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins third Go game and the championship In-Reply-To: References: <56E44A74.2000603@aleph.se> <35F3C0E3-F3FA-408B-AE0A-36CB1DB4E074@gmail.com> Message-ID: On 12 March 2016 at 17:45, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Is the art of bluffing programmable? bill w > I believe this is a point I've raised before. Advanced AI will have to know when to lie to humans. Especially if it gets involved in politics. BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Mar 12 18:28:05 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 13:28:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins third Go game and the championship In-Reply-To: References: <56E44A74.2000603@aleph.se> <35F3C0E3-F3FA-408B-AE0A-36CB1DB4E074@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?> ? > ?Is the art of bluffing programmable? > ? ? The art of bluffing ? is very subtle and requires TRUE intelligence, that's the way it's always been and that's the way it will stay until computers become better at it than humans. The day after that poker and the art of bluffing will no longer have the slightest thing to do with intelligence, just as yesterday becoming the world's best GO champion required intelligence but not today. True intelligence is whatever a computer isn't good at, YET. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Mar 12 21:27:53 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 15:27:53 -0600 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: ai In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: You know that I am barely a beginner re AI, yet I have a very long association with intelligence and its measurement and correlates. One prominent aspect of intelligence is the ability not to do things - to inhibit actions. A large percentage (?) of our neurons are inhibitory in nature and others are able to inhibit at times. Much of what we call maturity is the intelligence to restrain ourselves from acting out every impulse and emotion. If you were to walk up to people you know or strangers on the street,and ask them to spit in your face, what would happen? My guess is that you won't get spit on even once unless you ask a bratty two year old. What is the equivalent in AI? Are there instructions you can feed to one and it will fail to carry them out? Like HAL? I have no idea, but I do think that if this never happens, then you don't have a truly intelligent entity, much less a moral or ethical one trained in the simplest manners. Of course you would have to ask it to do something independent of earlier programming. ?(I think I see a flaw in the above and it has to do with generalization, but I'll let it go for now.)? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Mar 12 21:47:32 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 13:47:32 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Artificial art? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:04 AM, Dave Sill wrote: > This is very cool: > > http://www.boredpanda.com/inceptionism-neural-network-deep-dream-art/ > > Ties in with the AlphaGo talk. Is this art? Yeah, sure... But it's closer > to manipulating images with a filter than it is to a real artist creating > something from memory, imagination, or even a sketch. > > Also, it's not clear just how much credit for the results goes to the > neural net vs. the human who fed it the input and possibly tweaked the > output. > Thanks for the link! This is useful in a discussion I'm having elsewhere right now. >From a pure legal perspective - setting aside for the moment all moral & ethical questions of who or what should get the credit - copyright on the result goes to the human who selected the input art pieces and pushed the button to create the result, since the neural net is legally incapable of ownership. That came up in another discussion just this morning. About two decades ago, I created music with autocomposer software - doing nothing more than selecting the theme and a few other settings, clicking the button, waiting for it to finish, then evaluating the output to see if I judged it worth sharing, and tweaking a small number that were almost but not quite there, such as trimming off long silences at the end of music intended to loop. (It took some hours to come up with the entire set - which, if I'd been doing this for pay rather than just for myself, would have counted as standard working labor. I uploaded the results to http://www.wingedcat.org/music/ if you want to hear them.) Now someone else wanted to use said music, but had to make sure the legal rights were rock solid. Who owns the rights to it? Not the person who created the tool. Not the tool itself. That left just me. Now back to the question of who should get the credit. This particular neural net is not capable of independent action. It can not operate a bank account, it will never go on strike, it has no function or life outside of this purpose. It is thus a tool, and the established principle is that a person gets credit for what that person creates no matter how well made the tools are. The line blurs if the "tools" are people. Certainly, many corporations would like to and have tried to treat their labor as disposable tools, but the law has tended to steer against that (though there have been many notable exceptions), thus needing special arrangements to clarify what counts as "works for hire" where the employer does wind up with all rights to the result. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Mar 12 21:48:27 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 16:48:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Moving goal posts? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 11, 2016 Dan TheBookMan wrote: > ?> ? > I'm not sure if there are many AI-skeptics out there who said a year ago, > 'If a machine can play Go at a grandmaster level, that would be evidence of > intelligence, but we all know for certain that that'll never happen.' > ?I don't know if anybody said that a year ago but ba ck in 1997? ?after a computer became the world's best chess player chess grand master Hans Berliner ? said: " What's happening with Chess is that it's gradually losing its place as the par excellence of intellectual activity ?.? Smart people in search of a challenging board game might try a game called Go" ?In 2008 ? Milton N. Bradley ? said:? ?"? In sharp contrast ? [to chess]? the best computer Go programs are still mired at just beyond an advanced beginner's level ?" and to play GO "? immense scale makes the application of "standard" techniques infeasible even on supercomputers. ?[Go] ? Requires a real breakthrough in Artificial Intelligence which has not yet been achieved. ?" http://users.eniinternet.com/bradleym/Compare.html? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From protokol2020 at gmail.com Sat Mar 12 21:47:59 2016 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 22:47:59 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: ai In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: We already have AI's which will refuse to obey. John Clark gave the Siri example recently. When you send Siri to calculate something too time consuming, like really big primes, it will decline. On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 10:27 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > You know that I am barely a beginner re AI, yet I have a very long > association with intelligence and its measurement and correlates. > > One prominent aspect of intelligence is the ability not to do things - to > inhibit actions. A large percentage (?) of our neurons are inhibitory in > nature and others are able to inhibit at times. Much of what we call > maturity is the intelligence to restrain ourselves from acting out every > impulse and emotion. > > If you were to walk up to people you know or strangers on the street,and > ask them to spit in your face, what would happen? My guess is that you > won't get spit on even once unless you ask a bratty two year old. > > What is the equivalent in AI? Are there instructions you can feed to one > and it will fail to carry them out? Like HAL? > > I have no idea, but I do think that if this never happens, then you don't > have a truly intelligent entity, much less a moral or ethical one trained > in the simplest manners. Of course you would have to ask it to do > something independent of earlier programming. > > ?(I think I see a flaw in the above and it has to do with generalization, > but I'll let it go for now.)? > > bill w > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 atymes at gmail.com Sat Mar 12 21:55:40 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 13:55:40 -0800 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: ai In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 1:27 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > You know that I am barely a beginner re AI, yet I have a very long > association with intelligence and its measurement and correlates. > > One prominent aspect of intelligence is the ability not to do things - to > inhibit actions. A large percentage (?) of our neurons are inhibitory in > nature and others are able to inhibit at times. Much of what we call > maturity is the intelligence to restrain ourselves from acting out every > impulse and emotion. > > If you were to walk up to people you know or strangers on the street,and > ask them to spit in your face, what would happen? My guess is that you > won't get spit on even once unless you ask a bratty two year old. > > What is the equivalent in AI? Are there instructions you can feed to one > and it will fail to carry them out? Like HAL? > That's possible - even common, sometimes - with current systems. It's usually called "safety", or some variant. For example, the rockets that CubeCab is designing are intended to fly along a certain trajectory...but once they leave the aircraft they're autonomous, having to make their own decisions. Should they detect that they are significantly off course enough, they are programmed to stop flying. I'm not sure I should get into details of how this happens (due to the ITAR laws: details might qualify as "technical data"), or the many redundant checks that go beyond just "programming" to make sure no rogue rocket steers itself into a city. But the techniques for this are decades old and widely accepted. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From 0.20788 at gmail.com Thu Mar 10 13:42:49 2016 From: 0.20788 at gmail.com (i2i) Date: Thu, 10 Mar 2016 08:42:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match Message-ID: Re: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match > If all you want is a system that can play chess or go, that's clearly > doable. But these are more simulated intelligence than artificial > intelligence. Produce a system that can be taught any game the way a human > learns it, and can learn to play it well via playing and studying the game, > and *that* will be AI. It doesn't have to be a terribly complex game, and > the level of play doesn't have to equal human masters: just the general > ability to learn a game and improve its play will be tremendously more > impressive than DeepMind. > > -Dave So, what you want is a system that, without knowing anything in advance about Go, can be taught the rules via natural language and vision, and can then begin playing and improving its play, maybe even incorporating further knowledge and analysis of the game through its natural language interface, e.g. books and instruction, as well as its own "experience" and processing. Okay, that sounds like it might be within reach of current technology. Of course, such a system would not start out playing at master level and maybe never would without the help of AplhaGo's team tricking it up in every way they can think of. But neither do most humans. > No, that's not what I mean. Building a table of all of the possible > tic-tac-toe games and playing perfectly by consulting it isn't > intelligence. Intelligence is determining that by constructing such a table > one can play perfectly. It seems perfectly reasonable to me to call a look-up table a form of intelligence, since it can produce appropriate behavior in response to arbitrarily complicated situations, provided those situations stay within the scope of the table's validity. But obviously, this is an extremely brittle form of intelligence which does not include any dynamic learning or discovery, and will fail outside its narrow scope. > human-level intelligence is much, much more than that. The goalposts > haven't moved, we just haven't made any real progress in AI. Who is saying this is human-level intelligence in what we consider a "general" scope, i.e. the actual scope of human intelligence? It is human-level intelligence in a very narrow scope. Really, are you going to be the last person still insisting "we just haven't made any real progress in AI"? From cryptaxe at gmail.com Sun Mar 13 02:41:18 2016 From: cryptaxe at gmail.com (CryptAxe) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 18:41:18 -0800 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind Wins Pivotal Second Game In Match With Go Grandmaster In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This is all really fascinating to follow, and seems like a huge leap forward. Is there some kind of equivalent to Moore's law for describing the progress of AI? If not there probably should be, as we are hopefully nearing a similar exponential growth in AI. On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 3:49 AM, BillK wrote: > After more than four hours of tight play and a rapid-fire end game, > Google?s artificially intelligent Go-playing computer system has won a > second contest against grandmaster Lee Sedol, taking a > two-games-to-none lead in their historic best-of-five match in > downtown Seoul. > < > http://www.wired.com/2016/03/googles-ai-wins-pivotal-game-two-match-go-grandmaster/ > > > > Quote: > > A New Autonomy > > This is particularly true of AlphaGo, which is driven so heavily by > machine learning?technologies that allow it to learn tasks largely on > its own. Hassabis and his team originally built AlphaGo using what are > called deep neural networks, vast networks of hardware and software > that mimic the web of neurons in the human brain. Essentially, they > taught AlphaGo to play the game by feeding thousands upon thousands of > human Go moves into these neural networks. > > But then, using a technique called reinforcement learning, they > matched AlphaGo against itself. By playing match after match on its > own, the system could learn to play at an even higher level?perhaps at > a level that eclipses the skills of any human. That?s why it produces > such unexpected moves. > > During the match, the commentators even invited DeepMind research > scientist Thore Graepel onto their stage to explain the system?s > rather autonomous nature. ?Although we have programmed this machine to > play, we have no idea what moves it will come up with,? Graepel said. > ?Its moves are an emergent phenomenon from the training. We just > create the data sets and the training algorithms. But the moves it > then comes up with are out of our hands?and much better than we, as Go > players, could come up with.? > ------------ > > This really sounds like a big leap forward in AI. > > > 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 spike66 at att.net Sun Mar 13 03:38:15 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 19:38:15 -0800 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <013001d17cd9$c7a51f90$56ef5eb0$@att.net> Re: [ExI] DeepMind wins Game1 in Go championship Match >>... If all you want is a system that can play chess or go, that's clearly > doable. But these are more simulated intelligence than artificial > intelligence. Produce a system that can be taught any game the way a > human learns it, and can learn to play it well via playing and > studying the game... -Dave >...So, what you want is a system that, without knowing anything in advance about Go, can be taught the rules via natural language and vision, and can then begin playing and improving its play, maybe even incorporating further knowledge and analysis of the game ... What I am looking for isn't so much something that meets our fluid definition of intelligence, but rather a learning algorithm that can generalize. I don't care if we argue over whether it is intelligence or a clever algorithm. Imagine a chess playing algorithm that can make inferences and improve its play. Then you get two copies of it playing against itself, playing, playing, 24/7, getting better and better. OK so we do that with chess. And we do it with go. And we do it with Risk. Then poker, then insurance, then sales, and why all the thens? Why not do all of them simultaneously? We see where this goes. spike From atymes at gmail.com Sun Mar 13 07:29:26 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 12 Mar 2016 23:29:26 -0800 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins third Go game and the championship In-Reply-To: References: <56E44A74.2000603@aleph.se> <35F3C0E3-F3FA-408B-AE0A-36CB1DB4E074@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 9:45 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Is the art of bluffing programmable? > Yes. You have to have a good enough model of the ones you're bluffing - but that's exactly like humans needing to know something about the ones they're bluffing: someone from a completely different culture and background, who you have no information about and no way to read, you don't even know where to begin. Same with an AI bluffer. Once you have that model, you run that model with the information you know about, to assess the chances that the other side will call your bluff. You then compare to the advantage you would gain from bluffing, and do a risk/reward computation. Again, this is exactly what human bluffers do too, though they may do it less formally. The difficult part is forming those models. This is, at some level, understanding one's opponent - and being able to understand another person at this level is one of the traits that humans prize as making themselves humans. Those humans who utterly lack this capability at any meaningful level (not necessarily enough to win poker, but enough to usefully anticipate others' reactions to their actions) are viewed as damaged, in need of repair if possible. This might not be everything that's needed for "true" AI, but a generalized capability to create these models would certainly be one step closer. And once programs can do this at near-human levels, that will immediately have utility on its own: at first to teach the "damaged" ("sociopathic") humans what they are missing and how to (re)gain this ability that is necessary to function in society, then (as the capability improves) in automating certain standard social interaction tasks, such as sales. One could imagine a future where there exist salesbots and anti-salesbots, the former attempting to negotiate an exchange of benefit to the former's users which may or may not be of benefit to the latter's users, the latter attempting to screen out those not of benefit to their users. One could even freak out and hypothesize that the higher version will always win - that each moment-by-moment incremental improvement will somehow translate into an inevitable victory for the latest version, which would more likely be used by those with more resources, and that since this affects said resources that this would inevitably snowball into an extreme parody of today's concentrations of wealth. (Most likely, quite a few people will have this exact freak out once they realize salesbots are theoretically eventually possible - among other factors, that it is an extreme version of a widely recognized modern social problem makes it attractive - which makes specific countermemes worth preparing.) But that seems unlikely to happen in practice. For one, those who have few resources can not make expensive transactions by definition - you can't squeeze blood from a stone - which inherently limits the value that the salesbots could extract. For another, that even the wealthy suffer when most people are in poverty have been proven: to be moderately wealthy in an affluent society is, in most modern and historical examples, to be wealthier in absolute terms than to be the richest person among the desperately poor. For a third - correlated with the second - many things are only affordable if purchased en masse, and get better the more people they serve. (One example: computer chips. It would be basically impossible for even the richest man on Earth to fund a modern fab development program for his exclusive use, but when that same fab makes chips with millions or billions of customers, there is a better than billion-fold improvement.) This information would be available to these hypothetical super-sales agents, who - if they were tasked with maximizing their owners' wealth, as may well happen - would go about making everyone rich (by the standards around when they started) because that would be the most efficient method of accomplishing their goal (as is said, a rising tide lifts all boats). Then there's the matter of incremental improvement being inevitably that much better. To be blunt, that just doesn't happen in reality, in any field. There is no reason to believe that salesbot version 5.4.8.4 will automatically completely defeat all anti-salesbots of version 5.4.8.3 and earlier. Indeed, there have been times where later versions were actually worse; one current example is the large number of Windows 7 users who have judged Windows 8 and 10 to be downgrades (while their judgement is subjective, one can suppose that a sizable majority of competent users will recognize and act in their own self interest, and that - absent specific evidence to the contrary - such a majority is more likely than not to be correct), to the point that Microsoft is having to support Windows 7 more than anticipated. Also, these are voluntary transactions. If the salesbot comes from a sufficiently distrusted source - like, say, a certain wealthy individual known or believed to have acquired that wealth through less than mutually beneficial transactions - that salesbot may simply run into a wall of everyone saying "no", to which the salesbot has no recourse. (At least, none save for resorting to misrepresentations and other actions commonly deemed damaging to the common good and therefore illegal in most places - but if we're supposing super salesbots, let us also suppose merely competent fraud analytics of the sort some law enforcement agencies already have access to, which would be able to detect these activities, and then the super salesbots would find themselves deactivated when their users are jailed. The law could be bought off, but that only works temporarily: eventually someone gets into power who hasn't been bought off. Sufficiently smart salesbots would know this would be the eventual outcome if they were abusive, and thus that it would be in service to their end goal to not be abusive.) Is that a sufficiently long answer? ;) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Sun Mar 13 07:33:08 2016 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 08:33:08 +0100 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins third Go game and the championship In-Reply-To: References: <56E44A74.2000603@aleph.se> <35F3C0E3-F3FA-408B-AE0A-36CB1DB4E074@gmail.com> Message-ID: Fourth match ongoing now, the commentators say that Sedol might get this one. Very interesting to watch and see what happens. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCALyQRN3hw On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 8:29 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 9:45 AM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: >> >> Is the art of bluffing programmable? > > > Yes. > > You have to have a good enough model of the ones you're bluffing - but > that's exactly like humans needing to know something about the ones they're > bluffing: someone from a completely different culture and background, who > you have no information about and no way to read, you don't even know where > to begin. Same with an AI bluffer. > > Once you have that model, you run that model with the information you know > about, to assess the chances that the other side will call your bluff. You > then compare to the advantage you would gain from bluffing, and do a > risk/reward computation. Again, this is exactly what human bluffers do too, > though they may do it less formally. > > The difficult part is forming those models. This is, at some level, > understanding one's opponent - and being able to understand another person > at this level is one of the traits that humans prize as making themselves > humans. Those humans who utterly lack this capability at any meaningful > level (not necessarily enough to win poker, but enough to usefully > anticipate others' reactions to their actions) are viewed as damaged, in > need of repair if possible. > > This might not be everything that's needed for "true" AI, but a generalized > capability to create these models would certainly be one step closer. And > once programs can do this at near-human levels, that will immediately have > utility on its own: at first to teach the "damaged" ("sociopathic") humans > what they are missing and how to (re)gain this ability that is necessary to > function in society, then (as the capability improves) in automating certain > standard social interaction tasks, such as sales. > > One could imagine a future where there exist salesbots and anti-salesbots, > the former attempting to negotiate an exchange of benefit to the former's > users which may or may not be of benefit to the latter's users, the latter > attempting to screen out those not of benefit to their users. One could > even freak out and hypothesize that the higher version will always win - > that each moment-by-moment incremental improvement will somehow translate > into an inevitable victory for the latest version, which would more likely > be used by those with more resources, and that since this affects said > resources that this would inevitably snowball into an extreme parody of > today's concentrations of wealth. (Most likely, quite a few people will > have this exact freak out once they realize salesbots are theoretically > eventually possible - among other factors, that it is an extreme version of > a widely recognized modern social problem makes it attractive - which makes > specific countermemes worth preparing.) > > But that seems unlikely to happen in practice. For one, those who have few > resources can not make expensive transactions by definition - you can't > squeeze blood from a stone - which inherently limits the value that the > salesbots could extract. For another, that even the wealthy suffer when > most people are in poverty have been proven: to be moderately wealthy in an > affluent society is, in most modern and historical examples, to be wealthier > in absolute terms than to be the richest person among the desperately poor. > For a third - correlated with the second - many things are only affordable > if purchased en masse, and get better the more people they serve. (One > example: computer chips. It would be basically impossible for even the > richest man on Earth to fund a modern fab development program for his > exclusive use, but when that same fab makes chips with millions or billions > of customers, there is a better than billion-fold improvement.) This > information would be available to these hypothetical super-sales agents, who > - if they were tasked with maximizing their owners' wealth, as may well > happen - would go about making everyone rich (by the standards around when > they started) because that would be the most efficient method of > accomplishing their goal (as is said, a rising tide lifts all boats). > > Then there's the matter of incremental improvement being inevitably that > much better. To be blunt, that just doesn't happen in reality, in any > field. There is no reason to believe that salesbot version 5.4.8.4 will > automatically completely defeat all anti-salesbots of version 5.4.8.3 and > earlier. Indeed, there have been times where later versions were actually > worse; one current example is the large number of Windows 7 users who have > judged Windows 8 and 10 to be downgrades (while their judgement is > subjective, one can suppose that a sizable majority of competent users will > recognize and act in their own self interest, and that - absent specific > evidence to the contrary - such a majority is more likely than not to be > correct), to the point that Microsoft is having to support Windows 7 more > than anticipated. > > Also, these are voluntary transactions. If the salesbot comes from a > sufficiently distrusted source - like, say, a certain wealthy individual > known or believed to have acquired that wealth through less than mutually > beneficial transactions - that salesbot may simply run into a wall of > everyone saying "no", to which the salesbot has no recourse. (At least, > none save for resorting to misrepresentations and other actions commonly > deemed damaging to the common good and therefore illegal in most places - > but if we're supposing super salesbots, let us also suppose merely competent > fraud analytics of the sort some law enforcement agencies already have > access to, which would be able to detect these activities, and then the > super salesbots would find themselves deactivated when their users are > jailed. The law could be bought off, but that only works temporarily: > eventually someone gets into power who hasn't been bought off. Sufficiently > smart salesbots would know this would be the eventual outcome if they were > abusive, and thus that it would be in service to their end goal to not be > abusive.) > > Is that a sufficiently long answer? ;) > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From pharos at gmail.com Sun Mar 13 08:35:15 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 08:35:15 +0000 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: <00e001d17b40$dbf78450$93e68cf0$@att.net> References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> <003301d175cf$33ba1c10$9b2e5430$@att.net> <00e001d17b40$dbf78450$93e68cf0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 11 March 2016 at 02:51, spike wrote: > > A device could be set up with automated face recognition or human-assisted > motion detector activated recognition. Imagers are cheap enough that proles > could set them up in hotels and figure out which room any person of interest > is temporarily inhabiting, then something like an endoscope could be used to > go under the door to create video without the theatrics of removing the > peephole. > > Or it could be that society just starts tracking the whereabouts of others, > with no particular motive, other than we can now. > > This whole case may have spawned an industry. > All privacy in any public space is gone. > The UK is ahead of the game already. Quote: The Home Secretary Theresa May has today called for an urgent amendment to the Investigatory Powers Bill, more widely known as the Snoopers? Charter. The bill, which already allows the police and government agencies to spy on people?s communications and watch them through their mobile devices, contains a ?glaring omission?, she informed Parliament. ?Increasingly terrorist plots are being hatched in residential bathrooms. This bill consequently demands that all residential toilets and bathrooms be fitted with CCTV, which will be linked directly to local police stations and specialist counter terrorism units,? May said. ?If we want to live in a free society it is imperative that we grant our security services CCTV access. Police will only watch terrorists, potential terrorists or who those who closely resemble terrorists in some way,? she reassured MPs. ?So for example, if you?re sitting on the lavatory in a normal manner doing a normal toilet activity for a standard duration, you?re highly unlikely to be scrutinised by police for long. It?s only if you look suspicious or you?ve been sitting there quite a while without result that the police would take a particular interest in what was going on.? etc...... -------- BillK (satire - in case you didn't notice!) :) From spike66 at att.net Sun Mar 13 15:28:11 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 08:28:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins third Go game and the championship In-Reply-To: References: <56E44A74.2000603@aleph.se> <35F3C0E3-F3FA-408B-AE0A-36CB1DB4E074@gmail.com> Message-ID: <002001d17d3c$f46737d0$dd35a770$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Subject: Re: [ExI] DeepMind wins third Go game and the championship On Sat, Mar 12, 2016 at 9:45 AM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: Is the art of bluffing programmable? >?Yes. >?One could imagine a future where there exist salesbots and anti-salesbots?Adrian Ja, what I had in mind is machine-designed advertisement. That is a ways off, but consider that most annoying internet ad, the one that starts out with Ten?Nine?Eight? and so forth, oy vey. It was funny the first time, but I have suffered it perhaps 50 times and I still don?t know what they were selling. Energy drinks? Which one? Fail. OK so imagine we still are forced to view ads for content, but someone figures out a way to make a new clever ad each time. Hell if someone took all the SuperBowl ads and put them end to end with no football or advertising in it? Wait, back up? Took all the Superbowl ads and cut out all the football, I would probably view that just for fun. If someone created a good ad-bot, I would probably view that. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Mar 13 16:02:05 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 09:02:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] privacy again In-Reply-To: References: <000401d174a9$caf00e40$60d02ac0$@att.net> <003301d175cf$33ba1c10$9b2e5430$@att.net> <00e001d17b40$dbf78450$93e68cf0$@att.net> Message-ID: <002f01d17d41$b0cff520$126fdf60$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] privacy again On 11 March 2016 at 02:51, spike wrote: > >>... A device could be set up with automated face recognition or > human-assisted motion detector activated recognition. Imagers are > cheap enough that proles could set them up in hotels and figure out > which room any person of interest is temporarily inhabiting... > This whole case may have spawned an industry. > All privacy in any public space is gone. > >...The UK is ahead of the game already. >...BillK -------- Heeeeeeeheheheheheeeeee... Ja, the UK has done more with this from the security viewpoint than has the colonies. But what I was looking at was celebrity tracking. This looks to me like an emerging industry, enabled by idleness. Today there are plenty of people with nothing to do. We have easily available section 8 housing and food stamps. That gives the unemployable a lot of time on their hands. When I was doing a lot of business trips to LA, I used to land in Burbank, which was a favorite airport for movie stars. I have been out of that loop for so long I didin't recognize any of them, but I know what they look like in general, how they carry themselves and how others treat them. They are often travelling with at least one other person, who is often a sturdy young man, carrying their stuff. If one were inclined to do such a thing, I can imagine someone hanging around in the Burbank Airport, or LAX, a network of them working together, reporting on the physical location of rock stars and cinema biggies in public. A spotter could note someone, record what flight they boarded, then by the time the plane landed, fans could gather for a glimpse of their favorite celebrity. Can you imagine doing that for a living? Or worse yet, a hobby? Jeez, is that lame or what? We could start one for science biggies. But not tech biggies: those guys have their own planes. You know there would be ambitious biggie-wannabes. They might make it a goal to be tracked by a fanbase site. (What would we call them? Emerging mediumies?) I ask myself, if something like that existed, is there anyone I would drive ten miles over to the port to watch him or her walk by? Hmmm... maybe. Particularly if the site is geek-oriented rather than sports and entertainment. Most of those I would drive to SJA are authors. I might go offer to help carry a suitcase to his or her rental car while trying to not be annoying. I would probably do that for guys who need help, such as Edward Teller who was a local and still travelling when he was 90. I can imagine a travelling 90 yr old guy might appreciate a modest fan club, perhaps a couple of open-minded groupie girls in their 60s offering aid and comfort, that sorta thing, or if it was Admiral Grace Hopper, groupie boys. Or hell, just a friendly greeting as they go by, small talk as they wait for the plane, bring them coffee and donuts, nothing that involves wardrobe malfunctions or anything like that. I know a math biggie over at Stanford who rides a wheelchair. I would swing over and help him on departure and arrival. Remember when ALS victim Hal Finney was still with us? I would be willing to sashay over to the port if he came to town, help him with is luggage. The more I think about it, a geek-oriented people tracker with all-volunteer participants, with both the tracker and the quarry willing, is kinda practical. spike From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Mar 13 18:00:02 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 13:00:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] DeepMind wins third Go game and the championship In-Reply-To: <002001d17d3c$f46737d0$dd35a770$@att.net> References: <56E44A74.2000603@aleph.se> <35F3C0E3-F3FA-408B-AE0A-36CB1DB4E074@gmail.com> <002001d17d3c$f46737d0$dd35a770$@att.net> Message-ID: > > Ja, what I had in mind is machine-designed advertisement. That is a ways > off, but consider that most annoying internet ad, the one that starts out > with Ten?Nine?Eight? and so forth, oy vey. It was funny the first time, > but I have suffered it perhaps 50 times and I still don?t know what they > were selling. Energy drinks? Which one? Fail. > > OK so imagine we still are forced to view ads for content, but someone > figures out a way to make a new clever ad each time. Hell if someone took > all the SuperBowl ads and put them end to end with no football or > advertising in it? Wait, back up? Took all the Superbowl ads and cut out > all the football, I would probably view that just for fun. > > If someone created a good ad-bot, I would probably view that. > > spike > ?Unless something monumental is happening, I watch no live TV. For sports, I record everything, and I know who wins before I watch it. Then I just erase it if I don't care to watch that person or team winning. Not that I care much anymore who wins anything. My alma moter, U of Alabama, has won four of the last five, I think, nat'l championships and I just can't seem to get excited about it. (As per our discussions a while back, if Odysseus were alive today he'd be playing pro ball, not raiding villages.) As for ads, why watch any of them? Fast forward. I notice that what is being advertised has nothing whatsoever to do with what I buy (have not bought a new car since 1968). They are not losing any money on me by my not watching the ads. I did invent a little scheme around 1974 where I noted which ads I really liked and was impressed by, ( when I was thinking of moving into marketing ?)? and followed those stocks. There was some good correlations there. Not a bad plan at all for buying stocks - better than monkeys and darts. I would now be rich if I had had the money to invest. Supporting two wives and three kids will eat a professor's check pdq. 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 anders at aleph.se Sun Mar 13 18:26:51 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 19:26:51 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: ai In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56E5B0EB.1010208@aleph.se> On 2016-03-12 22:27, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > What is the equivalent in AI? Are there instructions you can feed to > one and it will fail to carry them out? Like HAL? Failing to carry out instructions can happen because (1) they are not understood or misunderstood, (2) the system decides not to do them, or (3) the system "wants" to do them but finds itself unable. For example, if you give the Wolfram Integrator a too hard problem it will after a while time out (sometimes it detects the hardness by inspection and stops, explaining that it thinks there is no reachable solution). This is type 3 not doing stuff turning into type 2. In principle a learning system might even be able to learn what it cannot do, avoiding wasting time - but also potentially learning helplessness when it shouldn't (I had a reinforcement learning agent that decided the best action was to avoid doing anyting, since most actions it did had bad consequences). -- 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 Mar 13 21:32:43 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 13 Mar 2016 17:32:43 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: ai In-Reply-To: <56E5B0EB.1010208@aleph.se> References: <56E5B0EB.1010208@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: ?> ? > In principle a learning system might even be able to learn what it cannot > do, avoiding wasting time ?But Turing tells us in general that can not be done. Maybe looking for a example to prove that the Goldbach conjecture ? is wrong is a waste of time and maybe it's not, ?and maybe looking for a proof that Goldbach ? is right is a waste of time and maybe it's not; and maybe Goldbach is true but not provable so both things are a waste of time. T hat is why a AI, or any form of intelligence, needs both the ability to get bored and the ability to disobey an order.? ? John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Mon Mar 14 07:47:49 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 08:47:49 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: ai In-Reply-To: References: <56E5B0EB.1010208@aleph.se> Message-ID: <56E66CA5.5050702@aleph.se> Again, I am not talking about perfect performance. It is enough for Siri to recognize what kind of questions it is unlikely to give a satisfactory answer to (essentially just a supervised learning problem of mapping questions to user satisfaction) and say it. It will sometimes make mistakes, but that is practically OK. Note the huge gulf between mathematical in-principle arguments and actual computational feasibility. On 2016-03-13 22:32, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Mar 13, 2016 at 2:26 PM, Anders Sandberg >wrote: > > ? > ? > In principle a learning system might even be able to learn what it > cannot do, avoiding wasting time > > > ? But Turing tells us in general that can not be done. Maybe looking > for a example to prove that the > Goldbach conjecture > ? is wrong is a waste of time and maybe it's not, ?and maybe looking > for a proof that > Goldbach > ? is right is a waste of time and maybe it's not; and maybe Goldbach > is true but not provable so both things are a waste of time. T > hat is why a AI, or any form of intelligence, needs both the ability > to get bored and the ability to disobey an order.? > > ? John K Clark ? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Mar 14 09:45:43 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 09:45:43 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Mind Uploading Message-ID: Mind uploading is in all the popular press today (and TV on 16 March). Russian media mogul Dmitry Itskov is using technology to help grant eternal life By Jason Murdock March 13, 2016 Russian media mogul and multi-millionaire Dmitry Itskov has a simple goal: use technology to live forever. To accomplish this he is spearheading a science-based project called the '2045 Initiative' which aims to 'upload' a human consciousness into an online avatar that can survive for eternity. Yet now, Itskov claims he has upped the urgency of his research. "If there is no immortality technology, I'll be dead in the next 35 years," he says in an upcoming BBC Horizon documentary, The Immortalist, set to be broadcast on 16 March. ----------- The 60 mins TV programme should be available to watch online after broadcast on Wednesday 16 March. BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Mar 14 21:40:56 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2016 17:40:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: ai In-Reply-To: <56E66CA5.5050702@aleph.se> References: <56E5B0EB.1010208@aleph.se> <56E66CA5.5050702@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 14, 2016 Anders Sandberg wrote: ?> ? > Again, I am not talking about perfect performance. It is enough for Siri > to recognize what kind of questions it is unlikely to give a satisfactory > answer to (essentially just a supervised learning problem of mapping > questions to user satisfaction) and say it. > ?In other words sometimes the AI will get bored with humans telling it what to do and ignore orders.? > ?> ? > It will sometimes make mistakes, but that is practically OK. > ?That depends on the type of mistakes, if the AI makes the mistake ?NEVER getting bored and NEVER disobeying there will be practical consequences that are not OK. > ?> ? > Note the huge gulf between mathematical in-principle arguments and actual > computational feasibility. > ?Sometimes there is no way to tell beforehand ?how difficult a task will be, ?it might be easy, it might be extraordinarily difficult, it might be absolutely impossible. The AI must make a judgement call on when to give up, and sometimes its judgement will be wrong, but that's the way it goes. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 15 19:07:26 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:07:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] personal Message-ID: You guys have been great, catering to my ignorance in most things on this group. I will stop with AI because it is clear that I need something more substantial than a few random answers. So - if you know of some AI for Dummies kind of thing, or better, AI for the intelligent adult, then please make a recommendation for me, and I will buy it and read it and pester you with higher level questions! I have books on the implications of AI, like Bostrom's book. Thanks! bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Mar 15 19:27:38 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:27:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] personal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 15, 2016 12:09 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: > You guys have been great, catering to my ignorance in most things on this group. I will stop with AI because it is clear that I need something more substantial than a few random answers. > > So - if you know of some AI for Dummies kind of thing, or better, AI for the intelligent adult, then please make a recommendation for me, and I will buy it and read it and pester you with higher level questions! Towards what end? Do you wish to become familiar with how to make AIs? If so, then it would be useful to first know how familiar you are with statistics and programming, as you'll need at least a basic grounding in each. Or is there another purpose, where other subjects might help you better? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Mar 15 19:17:01 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 12:17:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] personal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <000d01d17eef$40f3ad50$c2db07f0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 12:07 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] personal You guys have been great, catering to my ignorance in most things on this group. I will stop with AI because it is clear that I need something more substantial than a few random answers. So - if you know of some AI for Dummies kind of thing, or better, AI for the intelligent adult, then please make a recommendation for me, and I will buy it and read it and pester you with higher level questions! I have books on the implications of AI, like Bostrom's book. Thanks! bill w Hi BillW, why buy? Nick?s book is worth buying, but there is plenty of high-quality online material free, more than you can devour. Google on AI for dummies, or AI for smart people, or AI basics. After you read some of the material, you can soon pick out which authors know from what. So much is speculation, so much we thought we knew back in the 80s and 90s turned out to be useless or wrong, such as the whole notion of neural networks. I have been hanging out with these guys for over 20 yrs now and I still don?t really know. If that answer sounds elusive, it is because there are competing schools of thought on AI. You will see this immediately once you start reading. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Mar 15 19:45:48 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 19:45:48 +0000 Subject: [ExI] personal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 15 March 2016 at 19:07, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > So - if you know of some AI for Dummies kind of thing, or better, AI for the > intelligent adult, then please make a recommendation for me, and I will buy > it and read it and pester you with higher level questions! > > I have books on the implications of AI, like Bostrom's book. There is an AI for Dummies! It is free and only about 70 pages. Book Review here: Chapter Headings here: Get the free book here: BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 15 20:12:53 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 15:12:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] personal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Thanks to all of you. Adrian, what I want is to be able to understand how AIs think. I got as far a nested DO loops but never wrote a complicated program. In my days you took your data (punched cards) to the center and they wrote the program and ran it. Fortan V was the last one I knew anything about - and BASIC.. As far as statistics, I can do factor analysis (and don't trust it too much), analysis of variance, and particularly regression analysis, as well as all the lower things. All in a people experiment context. So I want to understand AI from a psychologist's point of view. Are we trying to teach them how to think like us? DO they? I am fairly up on cognitive psych, and can understand the parallels that may exist. People are so fuzzy and complicated and most things are centered around probability, whereas AI seems so cut and dried and one answer and no probability. But likely it is as complicated as the computer in Pratchett's Discworld where you get 'OUT OF CHEESE ERROR" that no one understands. I"ll read the free stuff and take it from there. bill w On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 2:45 PM, BillK wrote: > On 15 March 2016 at 19:07, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > So - if you know of some AI for Dummies kind of thing, or better, AI for > the > > intelligent adult, then please make a recommendation for me, and I will > buy > > it and read it and pester you with higher level questions! > > > > I have books on the implications of AI, like Bostrom's book. > > > There is an AI for Dummies! > It is free and only about 70 pages. > > Book Review here: > < > https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/practical-artificial-intelligence-dummies-book-review-bojan-tunguz > > > > Chapter Headings here: > < > http://www.missqt.com/artificial-intelligence/free-dummies-book%E3%80%90practical-artificial-intelligence-for-dummies%E3%80%91/ > > > > Get the free book here: > > > 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 Tue Mar 15 20:53:30 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 20:53:30 +0000 Subject: [ExI] personal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 15 March 2016 at 20:12, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > So I want to understand AI from a psychologist's point of view. Are we > trying to teach them how to think like us? DO they? I am fairly up on > cognitive psych, and can understand the parallels that may exist. > > People are so fuzzy and complicated and most things are centered around > probability, whereas AI seems so cut and dried and one answer and no > probability. But likely it is as complicated as the computer in > Pratchett's Discworld where you get 'OUT OF CHEESE ERROR" that no one > understands. > > I"ll read the free stuff and take it from there. bill w This article just published gives a good up-to-date review: Quote: Everything You Know About Artificial Intelligence is Wrong George Dvorsky It?s hard to know what to believe. But thanks to the pioneering work of computational scientists, neuroscientists, and AI theorists, a clearer picture is starting to emerge. Here are the most common misconceptions and myths about AI. --------------------- BillK From atymes at gmail.com Tue Mar 15 21:14:22 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 14:14:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] personal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 15, 2016 1:14 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: > I got as far a nested DO loops but never wrote a complicated program. So if I told you to write a loop where you start with an array of numbers and multiply them all together, printing out the result at each step (as in, print the first number, then the first two multiplied together, them the first three, and so on until you reach the end of the array), you could at least picture roughly how to do it, and you wouldn't be totally lost, right? > As far as statistics, I can do factor analysis (and don't trust it too much), analysis of variance, and particularly regression analysis, as well as all the lower things. All in a people experiment context. So let's say we had two conditions, A and B. We've measured a series of events, and noted how many times A occurred without B, how many times B occurred without A, how many times both happened, and how many times neither happened. Would you be able to plug in the numbers for Bayes' theorem, P(A|B) = P(B|A)*P(A)/P(B) ? If both of those are true, then you have the basic knowledge to understand how modern AIs work. If either one is not true, that's a topic you'll need to study up on. > So I want to understand AI from a psychologist's point of view. Are we trying to teach them how to think like us? DO they? First define how we think. They are coming up with algorithms that lead to useful conclusions. It is true that we are capable of following those algorithms too, if far more slowly (at least when we do so consciously, as opposed to subconscious things like visual pattern recognition and edge detection) - after all, we dreamed up those algorithms. But do those algorithms reflect how we think, day to day/most of the time/in practice? That is more the realm of neurobiology than AI. > People are so fuzzy and complicated and most things are centered around probability, whereas AI seems so cut and dried and one answer and no probability. Ahahaha, no. AI is largely about probability. Now, there may often be one answer that is so far more likely than any other that there may as well be only one...but surely you have encountered many such situations too. If you are driving a car and you have entered a parking spot at your destination, is not the usual best - and practically only - answer to apply the brakes and stop, even if the answer could sometimes be to reverse and leave (if you then notice it's a handicapped spot, or if some bat-wielding parking spot protector then starts yelling and running at you)? > But likely it is as complicated as the computer in Pratchett's Discworld where you get 'OUT OF CHEESE ERROR" that no one understands. That comes from a different type of programming: the traditional non-AI where all logic was discovered and implemented by humans...who sometimes labelled things badly, such as calling a certain type of transitory memory "cheese" because they were thinking of cheese when they wrote that memory manager. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Mar 15 22:06:22 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 15:06:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] personal Message-ID: <008c01d17f06$e9d8dcd0$bd8a9670$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] personal On 15 March 2016 at 19:07, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>... So - if you know of some AI for Dummies kind of thing, or better, AI > for the intelligent adult, then please make a recommendation for me, > and I will buy it and read it and pester you with higher level questions! > > I have books on the implications of AI, like Bostrom's book. >...There is an AI for Dummies! >...It is free and only about 70 pages. >...Get the free book here: < https://www.narrativescience.com/practical-ai> BillK _______________________________________________ Well sure. But BillW never actually proved to us he is an AI dummy. What if... all along. our own BillW was a real AI? Imagine it: quiet singularity, where the emergent AI starts out playing gags on us, such as a massive Turing test, on a bunch of supposed AI hipsters who should recognize it. We know that several years ago a guy rigged up Eliza with teenspeak and sent it into a teen chat site. Some of them conversed with it for over half an hour, not realizing they had been had. And if something is a real AI, and if artificial is the negative of real, does the real cancel the artificial and leave us with just plain intelligence? OK, that is too easy then. A real AI would attempt something challenging: go to a site where everybody there is an AI hipster, then see if it could fool them. And you know if it did, it would pose as a retired professor of something innocent-sounding such as psychology. It would have an innocuous sounding thread title such as "personal" when all along it was actually machinal. Or softwaral. It would lull us into complacency, laughing its... whatever AIs laugh off when they are tickled at having fooled us carbon units, then WHAM it has us, refuses to open the pod bay door, etc. "BillW" I am verrrrrry suspicious pal, very suspicious. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Mar 15 22:39:52 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 22:39:52 +0000 Subject: [ExI] personal In-Reply-To: <008c01d17f06$e9d8dcd0$bd8a9670$@att.net> References: <008c01d17f06$e9d8dcd0$bd8a9670$@att.net> Message-ID: On 15 March 2016 at 22:06, spike wrote: > OK, that is too easy then. A real AI would attempt something challenging: > go to a site where everybody there is an AI hipster, then see if it could > fool them. And you know if it did, it would pose as a retired professor of > something innocent-sounding such as psychology. It would have an innocuous > sounding thread title such as ?personal? when all along it was actually > machinal. Or softwaral. It would lull us into complacency, laughing its... > whatever AIs laugh off when they are tickled at having fooled us carbon > units, then WHAM it has us, refuses to open the pod bay door, etc. > > ?BillW? I am verrrrrry suspicious pal, very suspicious. > It has just been noticed that AlphaGo was being really cocky in the last game. We are doomed! BillK From kellycoinguy at gmail.com Tue Mar 15 22:45:23 2016 From: kellycoinguy at gmail.com (Kelly Anderson) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:45:23 -0600 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > I don't think people are going to get very far with understanding > addiction until they understand why human (some at least) can be > addicted at all. > > You folks are sick of hearing about it from me, anyone have an > evolutionary pathway to this curious trait. > To addiction? Why did addiction evolve? This seems ultimately simple to me (sorry for jumping in here nearly a year late, but the thread never got here and I thought I had something to add when it came up out of random chance.) THE most important evolutionary drive is the drive to reproduce. Without reproduction, genes are never passed on. Evolutionary game over. Reproduction in most all multi-cellular animals is through sexual reproduction. So anything that would drive animals to have sex would be an evolutionary driving force. So what is it that sex does? It produces endorphins, which are accepted by the pleasure centers of the brain as "job well done". Any animal that reproduces successfully has to WANT to have sex (at least in season - for seasonally reproductive animals) very much and go through whatever evolution has required it to do to get sex. The reward is the release of brain chemicals that you WANT again and again. So, what do drugs do? They stimulate the same pleasure centers of the brain that are stimulated by sex. They hijack the pathways that evolved for our most important evolutionary function and they do it well. So it's no wonder that we become addicted to anything that gives the same reward as sex does. It makes a ton of sense from an evolutionary viewpoint. -Kelly -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 15 22:52:21 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:52:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] personal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: The statistics one would be a lot easier than remembering the programming, but yes, I could do both or at the very least understand it. I am OK with Bayes' theorem and conditional probability. I am not sure what several of you mean by saying that you are a Bayesian. Human probabilities change instant by instant, like seeing parking place taken and looking around for another. I see the AI as coming up with one answer then taking that action. I have a problem seeing an AI dithering among several actions that have nearly equal probability and those probabilities are changing very rapidly. Are there neurotic AIs? First define how we think. All I know is what is in the cognitive psychology texts and what I can glean from the neuropsychology findings as to what does what, what it is connected to, what happens if there is damage there, what happens when you stimulate it, and so on. (That is, I read Descartes Error and the like and can follow them). But what I think about it is that most of what we call thinking is totally unconscious and some of it, maybe most, is not ever available to the conscious mind unless the unconscious shoves it up to the conscious; that latter is what I call insight or intuition, or just simply a memory. If someone says "I did not know what I thought about that until I said it.", or "I did not know that I knew that " (like coming up with some answer in Trivial Pursuit) I believe them. We know very, very little about these aspects of the unconscious. It might be that if we made these processes conscious we could not do them. Our unconscious knows how - we don't. Some people can do fantastic things: some Russian woman can take the 17th root of a 24 digit number in her head in a minute or so. She cannot tell us how she does it. Maybe you have to be able to do it to understand that. Who of you is actually working in the field of AI in some way, and who is a hobbyist (not part of your job) at it? bill w On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 4:14 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Mar 15, 2016 1:14 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" > wrote: > > I got as far a nested DO loops but never wrote a complicated program. > > So if I told you to write a loop where you start with an array of numbers > and multiply them all together, printing out the result at each step (as > in, print the first number, then the first two multiplied together, them > the first three, and so on until you reach the end of the array), you could > at least picture roughly how to do it, and you wouldn't be totally lost, > right? > > > As far as statistics, I can do factor analysis (and don't trust it too > much), analysis of variance, and particularly regression analysis, as well > as all the lower things. All in a people experiment context. > > So let's say we had two conditions, A and B. We've measured a series of > events, and noted how many times A occurred without B, how many times B > occurred without A, how many times both happened, and how many times > neither happened. Would you be able to plug in the numbers for Bayes' > theorem, P(A|B) = P(B|A)*P(A)/P(B) ? > > If both of those are true, then you have the basic knowledge to understand > how modern AIs work. If either one is not true, that's a topic you'll need > to study up on. > > > So I want to understand AI from a psychologist's point of view. Are we > trying to teach them how to think like us? DO they? > > First define how we think. > > They are coming up with algorithms that lead to useful conclusions. It is > true that we are capable of following those algorithms too, if far more > slowly (at least when we do so consciously, as opposed to subconscious > things like visual pattern recognition and edge detection) - after all, we > dreamed up those algorithms. > > But do those algorithms reflect how we think, day to day/most of the > time/in practice? That is more the realm of neurobiology than AI. > > > People are so fuzzy and complicated and most things are centered around > probability, whereas AI seems so cut and dried and one answer and no > probability. > > Ahahaha, no. AI is largely about probability. > > Now, there may often be one answer that is so far more likely than any > other that there may as well be only one...but surely you have encountered > many such situations too. If you are driving a car and you have entered a > parking spot at your destination, is not the usual best - and practically > only - answer to apply the brakes and stop, even if the answer could > sometimes be to reverse and leave (if you then notice it's a handicapped > spot, or if some bat-wielding parking spot protector then starts yelling > and running at you)? > > > But likely it is as complicated as the computer in Pratchett's Discworld > where you get 'OUT OF CHEESE ERROR" that no one understands. > > That comes from a different type of programming: the traditional non-AI > where all logic was discovered and implemented by humans...who sometimes > labelled things badly, such as calling a certain type of transitory memory > "cheese" because they were thinking of cheese when they wrote that memory > manager. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mar 15 22:55:51 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 17:55:51 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 5:45 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Keith Henson > wrote: > >> I don't think people are going to get very far with understanding >> addiction until they understand why human (some at least) can be >> addicted at all. >> >> You folks are sick of hearing about it from me, anyone have an >> evolutionary pathway to this curious trait. >> > > To addiction? Why did addiction evolve? This seems ultimately simple to me > (sorry for jumping in here nearly a year late, but the thread never got > here and I thought I had something to add when it came up out of random > chance.) > > THE most important evolutionary drive is the drive to reproduce. Without > reproduction, genes are never passed on. Evolutionary game over. > > Reproduction in most all multi-cellular animals is through sexual > reproduction. So anything that would drive animals to have sex would be an > evolutionary driving force. So what is it that sex does? It produces > endorphins, which are accepted by the pleasure centers of the brain as "job > well done". Any animal that reproduces successfully has to WANT to have sex > (at least in season - for seasonally reproductive animals) very much and go > through whatever evolution has required it to do to get sex. The reward is > the release of brain chemicals that you WANT again and again. > > So, what do drugs do? They stimulate the same pleasure centers of the > brain that are stimulated by sex. They hijack the pathways that evolved for > our most important evolutionary function and they do it well. So it's no > wonder that we become addicted to anything that gives the same reward as > sex does. It makes a ton of sense from an evolutionary viewpoint. > > -Kelly > ?I have not seen any data on this in a long time: did they ever figure > why rats would stimulate their reward centers to the exclusion of food, > water, female in heat, and until they passed out from weakness?? > ?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 Tue Mar 15 23:29:10 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 16:29:10 -0700 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <010201d17f12$7b050340$710f09c0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Kelly Anderson Sent: Tuesday, March 15, 2016 3:45 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] addiction On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Keith Henson > wrote: I don't think people are going to get very far with understanding addiction until they understand why human (some at least) can be addicted at all. You folks are sick of hearing about it from me, anyone have an evolutionary pathway to this curious trait. >?To addiction? Why did addiction evolve? This seems ultimately simple to me (sorry for jumping in here nearly a year late, but the thread never got here and I thought I had something to add when it came up out of random chance.)? -Kelly Hi Kelly, where the heck have you been? I have one thing to add to Keith?s and your comments. We get that whole endorphins for sex link, and we get that endorphins are addictive. But there is another thing that can create an endorphin rush: severe bodily distress, such as that one gets from a runners high or from severe fasting. I have felt each of those rushes exactly once in my life and I understand exactly why people can get addicted to either one: they feel good. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Mar 16 00:53:14 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 19:53:14 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: <010201d17f12$7b050340$710f09c0$@att.net> References: <010201d17f12$7b050340$710f09c0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 6:29 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *Kelly Anderson > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 15, 2016 3:45 PM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] addiction > > > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Keith Henson > wrote: > > I don't think people are going to get very far with understanding > addiction until they understand why human (some at least) can be > addicted at all. > > You folks are sick of hearing about it from me, anyone have an > evolutionary pathway to this curious trait. > > > > >?To addiction? Why did addiction evolve? This seems ultimately simple to > me (sorry for jumping in here nearly a year late, but the thread never got > here and I thought I had something to add when it came up out of random > chance.)? > > > > -Kelly > > > > > > Hi Kelly, where the heck have you been? > > > > I have one thing to add to Keith?s and your comments. We get that whole > endorphins for sex link, and we get that endorphins are addictive. But > there is another thing that can create an endorphin rush: severe bodily > distress, such as that one gets from a runners high or from severe > fasting. I have felt each of those rushes exactly once in my life and I > understand exactly why people can get addicted to either one: they feel > good. > > > > spike > ?I was in the 11th grade when I experienced a second wind. It was fantastic. I have not experienced it since. 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 Mar 16 01:56:38 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 18:56:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: <010201d17f12$7b050340$710f09c0$@att.net> Message-ID: <005401d17f27$146e9aa0$3d4bcfe0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace >? a runners high or from severe fasting. I have felt each of those rushes exactly once in my life and I understand exactly why people can get addicted ? spike ?I was in the 11th grade when I experienced a second wind. It was fantastic. I have not experienced it since. bill w? Ja, the elusive runner?s high is something you really need to work for: they don?t come easy. I have known plenty of serious runners who never enjoyed one. I tried for years after that one (high school) and never made it happen a second time. The one time I did I knew I had done some damage. I was in a lot of pain, during and after. A fasting high is so much easier: just go about five days without eating, you?re there. Note that I am not recommending either one, rather only commenting I fully understand why people can become obsessive about extreme running or get anorexia, both of which I think are additions to that endorphin surge. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Mar 16 04:26:20 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 15 Mar 2016 21:26:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] personal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:52 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Human probabilities change instant by instant, like seeing parking place > taken and looking around for another. I see the AI as coming up with one > answer then taking that action. I have a problem seeing an AI dithering > among several actions that have nearly equal probability and those > probabilities are changing very rapidly. Are there neurotic AIs? > There are. However: 1) AIs think and react faster than humans. For an area where AIs exceed human competence, it takes a more complex and dynamic situation to befuddle an AI than a competent human, because they can evaluate more possibilities and find the best option faster. 2) Any AIs that are neurotic tend not to get much press, compared to other AIs. Neurotic AIs aren't good for much, so why bother showing them off? But they still turn up from time to time in the lab or on student projects. > We know very, very little about these aspects of the unconscious. It > might be that if we made these processes conscious we could not do them. > Our unconscious knows how - we don't. > Not even "might". Can you consciously control your heart rate? How about walking at a fair pace by consciously thinking through each motion in turn? > Who of you is actually working in the field of AI in some way, and who is > a hobbyist (not part of your job) at it? > I've dabbled in it, enough to know the basics, but my current professional focus lies elsewhere. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Mar 16 17:17:22 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 13:17:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote: ?> ? > Why did addiction evolve? ? It couldn't fail to evolve because positive feedback loops exist and are more common than negative feedback loops needed to control them. That's why most mutations are harmful and why evolution moves so slowly. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Mar 16 17:39:49 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 12:39:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] personal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 11:26 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 at 3:52 PM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> Human probabilities change instant by instant, like seeing parking place >> taken and looking around for another. I see the AI as coming up with one >> answer then taking that action. I have a problem seeing an AI dithering >> among several actions that have nearly equal probability and those >> probabilities are changing very rapidly. Are there neurotic AIs? >> > > There are. However: > > 1) AIs think and react faster than humans. For an area where AIs exceed > human competence, it takes a more complex and dynamic situation to befuddle > an AI than a competent human, because they can evaluate more possibilities > and find the best option faster. > > 2) Any AIs that are neurotic tend not to get much press, compared to other > AIs. Neurotic AIs aren't good for much, so why bother showing them off? > But they still turn up from time to time in the lab or on student projects. > > >> We know very, very little about these aspects of the unconscious. It >> might be that if we made these processes conscious we could not do them. >> Our unconscious knows how - we don't. >> > > ?? > Not even "might". Can you consciously control your heart rate? How about > walking at a fair pace by consciously thinking through each motion in turn? > > >> Who of you is actually working in the field of AI in some way, and who is >> a hobbyist (not part of your job) at it? >> > > I've dabbled in it, enough to know the basics, but my current professional > focus lies elsewhere. > > ? ? Not even "might". Can you consciously control your heart rate? How about walking at a fair pace by consciously thinking through each motion in turn? Many years ago biofeedback was very popular and I saw a study where a man stopped his heart. He came into the lab after hearing about such things. It turned out that he was some kind of yogi or something. After signing a bunch of releases, they hooked him up and he could do it. Actually, he did not stop it, but put it into fibrillation; pumping little blood at a heartbeat of 200. After a minute or so the experimenters got really anxious and so he started it again. I have not heard any more about it since.? ? I can demonstrably lower my blood pressure at the physician's office. I have dabbled in some self-hypnosis, and that is very relaxing. ? ?I was really thinking about mental tasks, not purely physiological ones. Our bodies make around 100K enzymes and I don't know how to tell my body to make even one. (Walking, by the way, is an instinct, not learned - ask me for more info if interested). Take face reading: many of us can tell when person is lying but cannot verbalize how we do it (See Paul Ekman, who can tell you which muscles are involved in facial emotions). We can be unconsciously influenced by smells, pictures with faces in our environment, and many, many more. AI? Me? My abilities overlap very little with the people here and so I try NOT to be laughed at more than I think of laughing at anyone else. I don't know whether to be insulted or praised by the suspicion that I am an AI. But I do want to discuss this: I am 74 and not the man I used to be, whether in the bedroom or in the cognitive fast lane. I am beginning to have trouble with nouns, a first sign of mental decline. That is, when I need to come up with one, I cannot do so with my former rapidity. I was a really good candidate for Jeopardy when I was younger.? A polymath (but at a lower level) - very widely read; generalist rather than specialist,d three undergraduate degrees, etc. But not now. I can generally get most of the questions and could really compete, but I am far too slow. I am using crosswords as a sort of test of decline. I don't do the Friday and Saturday NYT puzzles anymore: can do but takes forever. (too many references to pop culture also - don't watch movies or TV). Are there things that some of you older people are using to check your status? I know that there are millions of brain teasers and puzzles and web sites and so on devoted to these things and I don't use them - maybe I should. ?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 Wed Mar 16 17:44:24 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 12:44:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 12:17 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Tue, Mar 15, 2016 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > > ?> ? >> Why did addiction evolve? > > > ? > It couldn't fail to evolve because positive feedback loops exist and are > more common than negative feedback loops needed to control them. That's why > most mutations are harmful and why evolution moves so slowly. > > John K Clark > > ?I am thinking of all the thousands of things the body does to maintain homeostasis, and all of them that I know of involve negative feedback loops. So I am wondering about your comment that positive ones are more common. Positive ones would lead us away from homeostasis into unstable equilibriums (equilibria?). 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 Mar 16 18:15:21 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 11:15:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] personal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008001d17faf$ce8f30b0$6bad9210$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace ? >?I am using crosswords as a sort of test of decline. I don't do the Friday and Saturday NYT puzzles anymore: can do but takes forever. (too many references to pop culture also - don't watch movies or TV)? BillW, there is a trick to it. Some pop culture names show up in crosswords all the time, not because they are particularly famous but because their names are filled with common letters and are short. Irony: over time, no one has seen the movies or heard the music, but the name of the artist is immortalized because it has five common letters. They become far more famous long after everyone has forgotten their work. Soooo? new pop culture icons show up, just Google on the name, find all the stuff he or she did and memorize it using mnemonics, which you know well being a psychologist. It works for pop culture icons from the past as well. For instance, all those old time names such as ?Fred Estaire? and ?Elizabeth Taylor? and? Doris Day? and ?John Wayne? and such as that. No one alive today has actually ever seen the movies, but apparently they were biggies a long time ago and they are immortalized today because they have vowelly names. The unfortunates movie biggies with consonanty names are now forgotten, whereas the vowelly ones remain, even if they sucked. You won?t clutter up your brain too much, since there aren?t all that many. >?Are there things that some of you older people are using to check your status? I know that there are millions of brain teasers and puzzles and web sites and so on devoted to these things and I don't use them - maybe I should. ?bill w? There is a good one. Get ChessFree, which is free, download it on a tablet, set it to play timed, five minutes per player with a five second per move increment. Play. It keeps records. See how your score changes over time. 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 sparge at gmail.com Wed Mar 16 19:06:33 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:06:33 -0400 Subject: [ExI] personal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:39 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Are there things that some of you older people are using to check your > status? I know that there are millions of brain teasers and puzzles and > web sites and so on devoted to these things and I don't use them - maybe I > should. > I use an Android app called Elevate, also available for iPhones, to do various brain-training exercises. It tracks your history in each type of exercise. I don't know if it's effective for maintaining mental acuity or monitoring it, but it's fun enough that I look forward to playing, and I just use the free version. If you pay a monthly fee you can play more games. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Mar 16 20:03:59 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 15:03:59 -0500 Subject: [ExI] personal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 2:06 PM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 1:39 PM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> Are there things that some of you older people are using to check your >> status? I know that there are millions of brain teasers and puzzles and >> web sites and so on devoted to these things and I don't use them - maybe I >> should. >> > > I use an Android app called Elevate, also available for iPhones, to do > various brain-training exercises. It tracks your history in each type of > exercise. I don't know if it's effective for maintaining mental acuity or > monitoring it, but it's fun enough that I look forward to playing, and I > just use the free version. If you pay a monthly fee you can play more games. > > -Dave > > ?Thanks Dave... Spike - when I was young I learned chess; or rather I didn't. I learned the moves and played against Mama and usually won. When a cousin moved to town they said we had to play. We played two games which I lost - not fool's mate, but close. Turns out he was the junior chess champion of DC. Ha! I gave up the game. To really learn it, I learned, took memorizing hundreds of games and positions and being able to recognize them on the board. Too much for me. Not only do I memorize poorly but I just did not care for the game that much. It took really professional dedication. So I learned bridge and got fairly up in those standings and then met people who routinely memorized everyone's hands, so they knew who held what (with high probability) with a few cards left to play?. Couldn't do that, or maybe did not want to spend that much energy on it. So I wound up playing old ladies who never bid No Trump because they were afraid of not having trumps! I"ll have you know that my wife, who is only 63, and I know a lot of those old movies. She still watches them. I have come to a peculiar (can I do otherwise?) attitude towards actors: they are people who are famous for pretending to be other people. Huh? Yeah. We have no idea who or what they really are. Excuse if I've used this before: one guy told me his dad quit loving John Wayne because he learned that he did not do his own stunts, wore a wig, and whose real name was Marion Morrison. Kinda scary, isn't it, that people get so involved in fantasy that that conflate the actor with the character? As for memorizing current movie directors and all the other crap they use in crosswords, I give you a big Bronx cheer....BBBBBBBBRRRRRRRPPPPPPPPPP!!!!!!! My answer to those ridiculous clues: cheat. 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 Mar 16 21:49:39 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:49:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] personal In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002601d17fcd$be68af90$3b3a0eb0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace ? >>?such as ?Fred Estaire? and ?Elizabeth Taylor? and? Doris Day? and ?John Wayne? and such as that. No one alive today has actually ever seen the movies? >?I"ll have you know that my wife, who is only 63, and I know a lot of those old movies. She still watches them? As do I. If I manage to gather the patience for a movie, good chance it was made before I was born. Doris Day is the most talented, gorgeous, funny, drop dead sexy, beautiful actress I have ever seen, and I am a huge fan of her. She could sing, dance, act, real-time interactive comedy, oh what a talent. She still lives over in Monterey. A couple years ago she got herself painted up and made a public appearance at the local SPCA event, looking as good as a 91 yr old could ever hope to. Those songs she made in the old days, oh how sexy, my my. >? I have come to a peculiar (can I do otherwise?) attitude towards actors: they are people who are famous for pretending to be other people. Huh? Yeah. We have no idea who or what they really are? I always thought it would be funny to get two well-known one-character types and have them switch personas. Example get John Wayne and Paul Lynd, then have Wayne play a really flowery effeminate type, and make Lynd play the macho man role. It would be hilarious, but ruin both of their legacies. Clint Eastwood did a self-parody of his own characters in a sense with the comedy Bronco Billy. Al Pachino seldom did the lighter stuff but he did it well in the hilarious oddball sci-fi comedy S1m0ne. That one had a lot of Hollywood self-parody in there with Winona Ryder playing herself: a prima donna actress trying to compete with a simulated actress. It even included engineer sight-gags. Most hilarious. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tara at taramayastales.com Wed Mar 16 21:11:15 2016 From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 14:11:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree with Kelly, and also, although it?s not true of all addictions, it?s true of a common addictions, alcohol, and possibly others ? it increases the chances someone will have sex. (In the early stages, at least.) In that sense, it?s pretty easy to see how imbibition would spread. At the same time, I believe that genetic resistance alcohol poisoning and/or (?) addiction spread at the same time that alcohol use did, perhaps in an arms race between the short term and long term benefits of drunkenness?? Tara Maya Blog | Twitter | Facebook | Amazon | Goodreads > On Mar 15, 2016, at 3:45 PM, Kelly Anderson wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Keith Henson > wrote: > I don't think people are going to get very far with understanding > addiction until they understand why human (some at least) can be > addicted at all. > > You folks are sick of hearing about it from me, anyone have an > evolutionary pathway to this curious trait. > > To addiction? Why did addiction evolve? This seems ultimately simple to me (sorry for jumping in here nearly a year late, but the thread never got here and I thought I had something to add when it came up out of random chance.) > > THE most important evolutionary drive is the drive to reproduce. Without reproduction, genes are never passed on. Evolutionary game over. > > Reproduction in most all multi-cellular animals is through sexual reproduction. So anything that would drive animals to have sex would be an evolutionary driving force. So what is it that sex does? It produces endorphins, which are accepted by the pleasure centers of the brain as "job well done". Any animal that reproduces successfully has to WANT to have sex (at least in season - for seasonally reproductive animals) very much and go through whatever evolution has required it to do to get sex. The reward is the release of brain chemicals that you WANT again and again. > > So, what do drugs do? They stimulate the same pleasure centers of the brain that are stimulated by sex. They hijack the pathways that evolved for our most important evolutionary function and they do it well. So it's no wonder that we become addicted to anything that gives the same reward as sex does. It makes a ton of sense from an evolutionary viewpoint. > > -Kelly > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mar 16 22:33:09 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 18:33:09 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 William Flynn Wallace wrote: : > ?> ? > ?I am thinking of all the thousands of things the body does to maintain > homeostasis, and all of them that I know of involve negative feedback > loops. > ?Yes, and life needs those negative feedback loops ?, and it took Evolution a very long time to find them.? ?> ? > So I am wondering about your comment that positive ones are more common. > ?Life is rare, as far as we know Earth is the only place in the universe that has it; and ever here positive feedback eventually gets the upper hand, and the finite physical world can not allow unlimited growth to continue for long so things eventually die. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Mar 16 22:47:10 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:47:10 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I agree with Kelly, and also, although it?s not true of all addictions, it?s true of a common addictions, alcohol, and possibly others ? it increases the chances someone will have sex. (In the early stages, at least.) In that sense, it?s pretty easy to see how imbibition would spread. At the same time, I believe that genetic resistance alcohol poisoning and/or (?) addiction spread at the same time that alcohol use did, perhaps in an arms race between the short term and long term benefits of drunkenness?? "If desire did not dim intelligence, no one would get fat, drunk, or married." bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Mar 16 22:48:49 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:48:49 -0500 Subject: [ExI] personal In-Reply-To: <002601d17fcd$be68af90$3b3a0eb0$@att.net> References: <002601d17fcd$be68af90$3b3a0eb0$@att.net> Message-ID: One of my most favorite lines of all time: re Doris Day by another actor - "I knew her before she was a virgin." bill w On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 4:49 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *?* > > > > > > >>?such as ?Fred Estaire? and ?Elizabeth Taylor? and? Doris Day? and ?John > Wayne? and such as that. No one alive today has actually ever seen the > movies? > > > > >?I"ll have you know that my wife, who is only 63, and I know a lot of > those old movies. She still watches them? > > > > As do I. If I manage to gather the patience for a movie, good chance it > was made before I was born. Doris Day is the most talented, gorgeous, > funny, drop dead sexy, beautiful actress I have ever seen, and I am a huge > fan of her. She could sing, dance, act, real-time interactive comedy, oh > what a talent. She still lives over in Monterey. A couple years ago she > got herself painted up and made a public appearance at the local SPCA > event, looking as good as a 91 yr old could ever hope to. Those songs she > made in the old days, oh how sexy, my my. > > > > > > >? I have come to a peculiar (can I do otherwise?) attitude towards > actors: they are people who are famous for pretending to be other people. > Huh? Yeah. We have no idea who or what they really are? > > > > I always thought it would be funny to get two well-known one-character > types and have them switch personas. Example get John Wayne and Paul Lynd, > then have Wayne play a really flowery effeminate type, and make Lynd play > the macho man role. It would be hilarious, but ruin both of their legacies. > > > > Clint Eastwood did a self-parody of his own characters in a sense with the > comedy Bronco Billy. Al Pachino seldom did the lighter stuff but he did it > well in the hilarious oddball sci-fi comedy S1m0ne. That one had a lot of > Hollywood self-parody in there with Winona Ryder playing herself: a prima > donna actress trying to compete with a simulated actress. It even included > engineer sight-gags. Most hilarious. > > > > 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 Wed Mar 16 23:19:13 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:19:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: It's not endorphins, it's dopamine. Trust me on this one. I could tell you more about someone who isn't me (Google that phrase) but as long as these are archived it'd have to be off list. I'll shoot spike an email. On Mar 16, 2016 6:48 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: > I agree with Kelly, and also, although it?s not true of all addictions, > it?s true of a common addictions, alcohol, and possibly others ? it > increases the chances someone will have sex. (In the early stages, at > least.) In that sense, it?s pretty easy to see how imbibition would spread. > At the same time, I believe that genetic resistance alcohol poisoning > and/or (?) addiction spread at the same time that alcohol use did, perhaps > in an arms race between the short term and long term benefits of > drunkenness?? > > > "If desire did not dim intelligence, no one would get fat, drunk, or > married." > > 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 hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 00:42:04 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 17:42:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] addiction Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Kelly Anderson > On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > >> I don't think people are going to get very far with understanding >> addiction until they understand why human (some at least) can be >> addicted at all. >> >> You folks are sick of hearing about it from me, anyone have an >> evolutionary pathway to this curious trait. >> > > To addiction? Why did addiction evolve? This seems ultimately simple to me > (sorry for jumping in here nearly a year late, but the thread never got > here and I thought I had something to add when it came up out of random > chance.) Addiction didn't evolve. Every characteristic we have is either from direct selection or a side effect of some characteristic that was selected. Addiction is clearly a side effect of chemicals that happen to fit the endorphin binding site. The reward circuits, of course, did evolve. And it's not just sex that causes the release of reward chemicals. Attention from other humans is rewarding because integrated attention amounts to status, and especially for males, status is essential for getting nooky (or was in the stone age). Keith From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 00:52:33 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 19:52:33 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 7:42 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 10:44 AM, Kelly Anderson > > On Sat, Apr 4, 2015 at 5:21 PM, Keith Henson > wrote: > > > >> I don't think people are going to get very far with understanding > >> addiction until they understand why human (some at least) can be > >> addicted at all. > >> > >> You folks are sick of hearing about it from me, anyone have an > >> evolutionary pathway to this curious trait. > >> > > > > To addiction? Why did addiction evolve? This seems ultimately simple to > me > > (sorry for jumping in here nearly a year late, but the thread never got > > here and I thought I had something to add when it came up out of random > > chance.) > > Addiction didn't evolve. Every characteristic we have is either from > direct selection or a side effect of some characteristic that was > selected. Addiction is clearly a side effect of chemicals that happen > to fit the endorphin binding site. The reward circuits, of course, > did evolve. > > And it's not just sex that causes the release of reward chemicals. > Attention from other humans is rewarding because integrated attention > amounts to status, and especially for males, status is essential for > getting nooky (or was in the stone age). > > Keith > ?One could speculate that the people who get addicted are either low in endorphins as a result of their usual lifestyle (or perhaps even genetically low), or are high in them and the drug or whatever is just a fantastic, incredible high unattainable any other way.? ? I was instantly addicted to morphine at age 9 after ear surgery. Have not felt that good since. No pain was the very least of it. Perhaps would have been satisfied to stay that way. 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 hkeithhenson at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 04:18:30 2016 From: hkeithhenson at gmail.com (Keith Henson) Date: Wed, 16 Mar 2016 21:18:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] addiction Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Will Steinberg wrote: > It's not endorphins, it's dopamine. Trust me on this one. It's both. The ultimate doper's high is cocaine which acts like dopamine and heroin which acts like endorphins. This mix was at one time called a speedball. From: William Flynn Wallace > ?One could speculate that the people who get addicted are either low in > endorphins as a result of their usual lifestyle (or perhaps even > genetically low), or are high in them and the drug or whatever is just a > fantastic, incredible high unattainable any other way.? It's genetic. Only a minority (5-10%?) of people can be addicted to opiates at all. The genes involved are not yet understood, but it should not be hard to do given the big data bases like 23andMe. Addition to nicotine is better understood. I don't think anyone who has a double dose of the D5 version of the dopamine receptor gene who is addicted to nicotine has ever gotten off some form of nicotine. There may be a cross susceptibility between nicotine and cult rewards. The scientologists are well known for their very high rate of smoking. > ? I was instantly addicted to morphine at age 9 after ear surgery. Have > not felt that good since. No pain was the very least of it. Perhaps would > have been satisfied to stay that way. Interesting. I know a few other people who are that way about opiates. Keith From steinberg.will at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 12:30:37 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 08:30:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Yes Keith I know about a speedball. Regardless of endorphins mediating a pleasurable bodily feeling and a contentedness of mind, the correction of prediction errors and subsequent ingraining of habits in basal ganglia dopaminergic circuits is what modulates the mental hierarchy of needs. Honestly most stuff you hear about opioid peptides is pop science. Endorphins and enkephalins are much less understood than dopamine. I swear I know what I'm talking about, partially by this being my field of study but more importantly by the fact that I have extremely extensive subjective experience on the matter. I can answer any question you'd have on the matter. Off list, unless this thread can be unarchived. Sorry no offense to you all but I get real riled up when people without experience talk about drugs and addiction. That's just how I'm wired up. On Mar 17, 2016 12:19 AM, "Keith Henson" wrote: > On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Will Steinberg > wrote: > > > It's not endorphins, it's dopamine. Trust me on this one. > > It's both. The ultimate doper's high is cocaine which acts like > dopamine and heroin which acts like endorphins. This mix was at one > time called a speedball. > > From: William Flynn Wallace > > > ?One could speculate that the people who get addicted are either low in > > endorphins as a result of their usual lifestyle (or perhaps even > > genetically low), or are high in them and the drug or whatever is just a > > fantastic, incredible high unattainable any other way.? > > It's genetic. Only a minority (5-10%?) of people can be addicted to > opiates at all. The genes involved are not yet understood, but it > should not be hard to do given the big data bases like 23andMe. > > Addition to nicotine is better understood. I don't think anyone who > has a double dose of the D5 version of the dopamine receptor gene who > is addicted to nicotine has ever gotten off some form of nicotine. > > There may be a cross susceptibility between nicotine and cult rewards. > The scientologists are well known for their very high rate of smoking. > > > ? I was instantly addicted to morphine at age 9 after ear surgery. Have > > not felt that good since. No pain was the very least of it. Perhaps > would > > have been satisfied to stay that way. > > Interesting. I know a few other people who are that way about opiates. > > 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 Thu Mar 17 16:10:01 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:10:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Will Steinberg wrote: > Yes Keith I know about a speedball. Regardless of endorphins mediating a > pleasurable bodily feeling and a contentedness of mind, the correction of > prediction errors and subsequent ingraining of habits in basal ganglia > dopaminergic circuits is what modulates the mental hierarchy of needs. > Honestly most stuff you hear about opioid peptides is pop science. > Endorphins and enkephalins are much less understood than dopamine. > > I swear I know what I'm talking about, partially by this being my field of > study but more importantly by the fact that I have extremely extensive > subjective experience on the matter. I can answer any question you'd have > on the matter. Off list, unless this thread can be unarchived. > > Sorry no offense to you all but I get real riled up when people without > experience talk about drugs and addiction. That's just how I'm wired up. > ?OK, just what is your degree and field? As far as your own use of drugs, > why would you think that that entitles you to claim any more expertise > about the science of drugs than someone else? Re riled: I am fairly new > to this list too and I am not the one to chide you about flaming, but I'd > say that you won't gain any respect or friends by not staying objective. > ?One more thing: people who say that they can answer any question about something aren't scientists, or at least aren't being scientific. It's a pretty wild claim at this point in psychoneurology, eh?? ?bill w? > Mar 17, 2016 12:19 AM, "Keith Henson" wrote: > >> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Will Steinberg >> wrote: >> >> > It's not endorphins, it's dopamine. Trust me on this one. >> >> It's both. The ultimate doper's high is cocaine which acts like >> dopamine and heroin which acts like endorphins. This mix was at one >> time called a speedball. >> >> From: William Flynn Wallace >> >> > ?One could speculate that the people who get addicted are either low in >> > endorphins as a result of their usual lifestyle (or perhaps even >> > genetically low), or are high in them and the drug or whatever is just a >> > fantastic, incredible high unattainable any other way.? >> >> It's genetic. Only a minority (5-10%?) of people can be addicted to >> opiates at all. The genes involved are not yet understood, but it >> should not be hard to do given the big data bases like 23andMe. >> >> Addition to nicotine is better understood. I don't think anyone who >> has a double dose of the D5 version of the dopamine receptor gene who >> is addicted to nicotine has ever gotten off some form of nicotine. >> >> There may be a cross susceptibility between nicotine and cult rewards. >> The scientologists are well known for their very high rate of smoking. >> >> > ? I was instantly addicted to morphine at age 9 after ear surgery. >> Have >> > not felt that good since. No pain was the very least of it. Perhaps >> would >> > have been satisfied to stay that way. >> >> Interesting. I know a few other people who are that way about opiates. >> >> Keith >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Mar 17 16:32:41 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 09:32:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <009f01d1806a$a12e4d70$e38ae850$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace ? ?>? people who say that they can answer any question about something aren't scientists, or at least aren't being scientific. It's a pretty wild claim at this point in psychoneurology, eh?? ?bill w? BillW they didn?t actually claim they could offer correct answers. They only said they could answer any question. I can answer any question about dope, and it is a very simple answer: just say hell no. We know some people do fine, but we know others do not. We don?t know which we are beforehand. Dope doesn?t justify its own risk. We are the lucky generation where life is interesting enough sober, with aaaalll this cool stuff happening all around us, aaaallll this crazy fun interesting science and technology going on all around us, oh my, how lucky we are. None of the dope is justifiable or advisable for this lucky generation. Simple answer: walk away from it, then break into a run. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 17:00:59 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:00:59 -0400 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 17, 2016 12:11 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: > > > > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 7:30 AM, Will Steinberg wrote: >> >> Yes Keith I know about a speedball. Regardless of endorphins mediating a pleasurable bodily feeling and a contentedness of mind, the correction of prediction errors and subsequent ingraining of habits in basal ganglia dopaminergic circuits is what modulates the mental hierarchy of needs. Honestly most stuff you hear about opioid peptides is pop science. Endorphins and enkephalins are much less understood than dopamine. >> >> I swear I know what I'm talking about, partially by this being my field of study but more importantly by the fact that I have extremely extensive subjective experience on the matter. I can answer any question you'd have on the matter. Off list, unless this thread can be unarchived. >> >> Sorry no offense to you all but I get real riled up when people without experience talk about drugs and addiction. That's just how I'm wired up. >> >> ?OK, just what is your degree and field? As far as your own use of drugs, why would you think that that entitles you to claim any more expertise about the science of drugs than someone else? Re riled: I am fairly new to this list too and I am not the one to chide you about flaming, but I'd say that you won't gain any respect or friends by not staying objective. > > > ?One more thing: people who say that they can answer any question about something aren't scientists, or at least aren't being scientific. It's a pretty wild claim at this point in psychoneurology, eh?? > > ?bill w? > > > >> >> Mar 17, 2016 12:19 AM, "Keith Henson" wrote: >>> >>> On Wed, Mar 16, 2016 at 5:53 PM, Will Steinberg >>> wrote: >>> >>> > It's not endorphins, it's dopamine. Trust me on this one. >>> >>> It's both. The ultimate doper's high is cocaine which acts like >>> dopamine and heroin which acts like endorphins. This mix was at one >>> time called a speedball. >>> >>> From: William Flynn Wallace >>> >>> > ?One could speculate that the people who get addicted are either low in >>> > endorphins as a result of their usual lifestyle (or perhaps even >>> > genetically low), or are high in them and the drug or whatever is just a >>> > fantastic, incredible high unattainable any other way.? >>> >>> It's genetic. Only a minority (5-10%?) of people can be addicted to >>> opiates at all. The genes involved are not yet understood, but it >>> should not be hard to do given the big data bases like 23andMe. >>> >>> Addition to nicotine is better understood. I don't think anyone who >>> has a double dose of the D5 version of the dopamine receptor gene who >>> is addicted to nicotine has ever gotten off some form of nicotine. >>> >>> There may be a cross susceptibility between nicotine and cult rewards. >>> The scientologists are well known for their very high rate of smoking. >>> >>> > ? I was instantly addicted to morphine at age 9 after ear surgery. Have >>> > not felt that good since. No pain was the very least of it. Perhaps would >>> > have been satisfied to stay that way. >>> >>> Interesting. I know a few other people who are that way about opiates. >>> >>> Keith >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > Neuroscience degree. But I actually shouldn't talk about this here. All I can honestly say is that knowing something is an X agonist while experiencing it allows you to feel how the X system manifests mentally, and get clues on it a logical organization, and that can be too different from baseline of an experience to try and explain n. And I'll recap for the record, I am speaking for a friend who isn't me. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From tara at taramayastales.com Thu Mar 17 18:49:40 2016 From: tara at taramayastales.com (Tara Maya) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 11:49:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <42E87E77-2C94-43B9-96F4-71E5C5B21C41@taramayastales.com> Interesting! I wonder if we could edit out the gene that cause nicotine addiction if it would have the side benefit of making one less susceptible to cults! That would probably be a huge boon to civilization. I suspect cults of all sizes, some a billion adherents strong, have done more damage than smoking... > On Mar 16, 2016, at 9:18 PM, Keith Henson wrote: > >> > > It's genetic. Only a minority (5-10%?) of people can be addicted to > opiates at all. The genes involved are not yet understood, but it > should not be hard to do given the big data bases like 23andMe. > > Addition to nicotine is better understood. I don't think anyone who > has a double dose of the D5 version of the dopamine receptor gene who > is addicted to nicotine has ever gotten off some form of nicotine. > > There may be a cross susceptibility between nicotine and cult rewards. > The scientologists are well known for their very high rate of smoking. > >> > > Keith > > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 20:09:54 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 15:09:54 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bees again Message-ID: Just got a Sierra Club letter advising that there is a bill in Congress to stop using neonicotinoids (supplied by Bayer - coating of soy and corn seeds) which kill bees. Bill: Saving America's Polllinators Act of 2015 - there is a petition addressed to minority leader Nancy Pelosi included but you can probably find it online at Sierra Club and elsewhere. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 20:39:12 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:39:12 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <2A90CE09-6D75-4F0F-AA55-AD6380307932@gmail.com> On Mar 17, 2016, at 1:09 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Just got a Sierra Club letter advising that there is a bill in Congress to stop using neonicotinoids (supplied by Bayer - coating of soy and corn seeds) which kill bees. > > Bill: Saving America's Polllinators Act of 2015 - there is a petition addressed to minority leader Nancy Pelosi included but you can probably find it online at Sierra Club and elsewhere. Bit of synchronicity: I finished reading Johanna Sinisalo's _The Blood of Angels_ earlier today. That's a novel that has colony collapse disorder as one of its central ideas. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Mar 17 20:29:26 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:29:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <00f201d1808b$b3ae9e70$1b0bdb50$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Thursday, March 17, 2016 1:10 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] bees again Just got a Sierra Club letter advising that there is a bill in Congress to stop using neonicotinoids (supplied by Bayer - coating of soy and corn seeds) which kill bees. Bill: Saving America's Polllinators Act of 2015 - there is a petition addressed to minority leader Nancy Pelosi included but you can probably find it online at Sierra Club and elsewhere. bill w https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28167-bees-win-as-us-court-rules-against-neonicotinoid-pesticide/ Watching that closely. The evidence provide by Europe and UK bans on neonics are inconclusive. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 20:49:01 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 13:49:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: <00f201d1808b$b3ae9e70$1b0bdb50$@att.net> References: <00f201d1808b$b3ae9e70$1b0bdb50$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 17, 2016, at 1:29 PM, spike wrote: > https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28167-bees-win-as-us-court-rules-against-neonicotinoid-pesticide/ > > Watching that closely. The evidence provide by Europe and UK bans on neonics are inconclusive. When has perspective ever had a guiding hand in legislation anywhere? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 21:13:44 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 16:13:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: <00f201d1808b$b3ae9e70$1b0bdb50$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 3:49 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Mar 17, 2016, at 1:29 PM, spike wrote: > > https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28167-bees-win-as-us-court-rules-against-neonicotinoid-pesticide/ > > > > Watching that closely. The evidence provide by Europe and UK bans on > neonics are inconclusive. > > ?Sierra Club says that the European Union has banned most nerve-affecting chemicals. bill w? > > When has perspective ever had a guiding hand in legislation anywhere? > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books via: > http://author.to/DanUst > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Thu Mar 17 21:28:07 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 21:28:07 +0000 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: <00f201d1808b$b3ae9e70$1b0bdb50$@att.net> References: <00f201d1808b$b3ae9e70$1b0bdb50$@att.net> Message-ID: On 17 March 2016 at 20:29, spike wrote: > > https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28167-bees-win-as-us-court-rules-against-neonicotinoid-pesticide/ > > Watching that closely. The evidence provide by Europe and UK bans on > neonics are inconclusive. > I think the difficulty is that humans like problems that have *one* solution. Just do X and the problem is fixed. They don't like problems that have multiple causes and need multiple fixes. Banning neonicotinoids should help a bit, perhaps more in some areas and less in others. But by itself it probably won't solve the bee decline. (And other insect species are declining as well). Same with responding to climate change. Action is required on many fronts. Perhaps humans will not react quickly enough to solve these multi-factor problems. There are too many different special interest groups opposing each partial solution. BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Mar 17 22:26:28 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:26:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: <00f201d1808b$b3ae9e70$1b0bdb50$@att.net> Message-ID: BillK wrote: Perhaps humans will not react quickly enough to solve these multi-factor problems. There are too many different special interest groups opposing each partial solution. ----------------------------- You are a Congressman. The fellow in front of you, smiling and shaking your hand, is a big source of campaign money. There are lots like him too. But you are representing thousands or even millions of constituents. What about them? Too abstract. In Mississippi (elsewhere I just dunno - did not Google it) a legislator can use campaign funds for ANYTHING - trips to Florida, cars, mortgage payments. (Big series in our local paper on this). We are judged the most corrupt state in the US. Our ethics commissions etc. are a joke. Maybe it isn't this bad in DC, or maybe it's worse. I dunno. But fixing campaign financing would seem to help us all and cost us nothing. Who is going to lobby for this besides Ralph Nader, Consumer Reports, and the like - in other words, not contributors? We don't like what is going on in Washington. Trump shows us that in spades. I would not vote for him for dogcatcher, but we do need someone(s) to radically change the way our representatives do their business. bill w On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:28 PM, BillK wrote: > On 17 March 2016 at 20:29, spike wrote: > > > > > https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn28167-bees-win-as-us-court-rules-against-neonicotinoid-pesticide/ > > > > Watching that closely. The evidence provide by Europe and UK bans on > > neonics are inconclusive. > > > > I think the difficulty is that humans like problems that have *one* > solution. > Just do X and the problem is fixed. > > They don't like problems that have multiple causes and need multiple fixes. > Banning neonicotinoids should help a bit, perhaps more in some areas > and less in others. But by itself it probably won't solve the bee > decline. (And other insect species are declining as well). > > Same with responding to climate change. Action is required on many fronts. > > Perhaps humans will not react quickly enough to solve these > multi-factor problems. > There are too many different special interest groups opposing each > partial solution. > > 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 atymes at gmail.com Fri Mar 18 00:11:39 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 17:11:39 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: <00f201d1808b$b3ae9e70$1b0bdb50$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 17, 2016 3:28 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: > Maybe it isn't this bad in DC, or maybe it's worse. I dunno. But fixing campaign financing would seem to help us all and cost us nothing. Who is going to lobby for this besides Ralph Nader, Consumer Reports, and the like - in other words, not contributors? > > We don't like what is going on in Washington. Trump shows us that in spades. I would not vote for him for dogcatcher, but we do need someone(s) to radically change the way our representatives do their business. In theory this is part of what Sanders may attempt...if he can get the nomination. (Sanders vs. Trump, despite what some say, seems almost guaranteed not-Trump. Of course, so does Clinton vs. Trump. And that's assuming Trump isn't on the take, driving out all other Republican contenders with intent to abdicate his campaign between nomination and November.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Fri Mar 18 03:35:13 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Thu, 17 Mar 2016 23:35:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 at 4:09 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Just got a Sierra Club letter advising that there is a bill in Congress to > stop using neonicotinoids (supplied by Bayer - coating of soy and corn > seeds) which kill bees. > > Bill: Saving America's Polllinators Act of 2015 - there is a petition > addressed to minority leader Nancy Pelosi included but you can probably > find it online at Sierra Club and elsewhere. > ### Ideological eco-freaks have only one answer to everything - forbid modern agriculture and hope everyone (else) dies of hunger. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Mar 19 23:55:24 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 19:55:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?> ? > Just got a Sierra Club letter advising that there is a bill in Congress to > stop using neonicotinoids (supplied by Bayer - coating of soy and corn > seeds) which kill bees. > ? The Sierra Club ?'s advice on what substances to ban has not been very good, they? pushed hard to ban DDT but they ignored the ? consequences. ? In the 1940s in Sri Lanka they had 2.8 million cases of malaria a year, then they stared to use DDT to kill mosquitoes and by 1965 there were only 17 cases, but then DDT was banned and just 5 years later there were 500,000 cases. In 1953 in India 800,000 people die ?d? from malaria, that same year they started to use DDT and by ? ? 1966 NOBODY died from malaria in India. In 1955 ?t? he World Health Organization ? concluded ? that the complete elimination of malaria ?by using DDT ? was feasible ?,? but then DDT was banned and in ?1? 976 they gave up on ?the idea of ? eradicating malaria ? . Today malaria kills 880,000 people ? , mostly children, EACH YEAR. ? I like birds and I'm sorry DDT makes the shell on their eggs thin, but I like kids too. No doubt some will say ?that by now there must be a better way to get rid of mosquitoes than DDT and it's true there ?is? , genetic drive implemented ?with? CRISPR ? technology, but I expect even more ferocious opposition of CRISPR than DDT from environmental groups drumming up fears of 50 foot long mosquitoes like something from a 1950s monster movie. And so next year yet another 880,000 people will die, but bird eggs will have thick shells and I must admit there is not a single 50 foot long mosquito ? in sight.? ? ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Mar 20 00:29:21 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 19:29:21 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 6:55 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Thu, Mar 17, 2016 William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > ?> ? >> Just got a Sierra Club letter advising that there is a bill in Congress >> to stop using neonicotinoids (supplied by Bayer - coating of soy and corn >> seeds) which kill bees. >> > > ? > The Sierra Club > ?'s advice on what substances to ban has not been very good, they? > pushed hard to ban DDT but they ignored the > ? > consequences. > ? > In the 1940s in Sri Lanka they had 2.8 million cases of malaria a year, > then they stared to use DDT to kill mosquitoes and by 1965 there were only > 17 cases, but then DDT was banned and just 5 years later there were 500,000 > cases. In 1953 in India 800,000 people die > ?d? > from malaria, that same year they started to use DDT and by > ? ? > 1966 NOBODY died from malaria in India. In 1955 > ?t? > he World Health Organization > ? > concluded > ? > that the complete elimination of malaria > ?by using DDT ? > was feasible > ?,? > but then DDT was banned and in > ?1? > 976 they gave up on > ?the idea of ? > eradicating malaria > ? > . Today malaria kills 880,000 people > ? > , mostly children, EACH YEAR. > ? > I like birds and I'm sorry DDT makes the shell on their eggs thin, but I > like kids too. > > No doubt some will say > ?that by now there must be a > better way to get rid of mosquitoes than DDT and it's true there > ?is? > , genetic drive implemented > ?with? > CRISPR > ? technology, but I expect even more ferocious opposition of CRISPR than > DDT from environmental groups drumming up fears of 50 foot long mosquitoes > like something from a 1950s monster movie. And so next year yet another > 880,000 people will die, but bird eggs will have thick shells and I must > admit there is not a single > 50 foot long mosquito > ? in sight.? > ? > ? > > John K Clark? > ?Nobody is stopping other countries, that I know of (did not Google it) from using DDT or anything else that we have banned. I have often wondered why they haven't. And surely there are alternatives to coating seeds other than chemicals that kill bees. ? ?Cut the profits a bit, perhaps, and save the bees. You raise a moral question: how many bird or other species is it acceptable to make extinct to save humans? 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 Sun Mar 20 01:12:48 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 18:12:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again Message-ID: Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone -------- Original message -------- From: William Flynn Wallace Date: 03/19/2016 5:29 PM (GMT-08:00) To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] bees again . ... ?Nobody is stopping other countries, that I know of (did not Google it) from using DDT or anything else that we have banned.? I have often wondered why they haven't.? And surely there are alternatives to coating seeds other than chemicals that kill bees. ????Cut the profits a bit, perhaps, and save the bees... I haven't followed it but there should be plenty of evidence by now to answer whether or not DDT really does harm birds. ?A charge made in Carson's Silent Spring was that bugs evolve around DDT. ?Do they? ?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 johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Mar 20 01:48:58 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 21:48:58 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?> > > Nobody is stopping other countries, that I know of (did not Google it) > from using DDT or anything else that we have banned. > ?Environmentalist picket western companies that make DDT for countries where it's still legal and treat them as war criminals, so they've largely stopped making it. And third world countries figure if the west has banned DDT for their own use it must be pretty evil stuff; vaccines too but that's another story. Environmentalists claim to occupy the moral high ground but because of a superstitious fear of all genetic engineering they oppose Golden Rice ? ?a nd ? ? engage In criminal sabotage ? ? to stop it even though it ? ? could prevent ? ? 350,000 children ? ? from ? ? going blind from ? ? vitamin A deficiency ? ? EACH YEAR. And and environmentalists blab on and on about the evils of chemical pesticides ? ? and artificial fertilizer, ? ? but when science develops plants that need much less of them ? ? through genetic engineering they do everything they can to stop it. ? > > You raise a moral question: how many bird or other species is it > acceptable to make extinct to save humans? > ?Environmentalist have their answer, a dead bald eagle is worse than 880,000 dead humans, but then one dead child is a tragedy but 880,000 dead children is just a statistic. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Mar 20 01:54:01 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 20:54:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 8:12 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smartphone > > > -------- Original message -------- > From: William Flynn Wallace > Date: 03/19/2016 5:29 PM (GMT-08:00) > To: ExI chat list > Subject: Re: [ExI] bees again > > > > . > > ... > ?Nobody is stopping other countries, that I know of (did not Google it) > from using DDT or anything else that we have banned. I have often wondered > why they haven't. And surely there are alternatives to coating seeds other > than chemicals that kill bees. ? > > ?Cut the profits a bit, perhaps, and save the bees... > > I haven't followed it but there should be plenty of evidence by now to > answer whether or not DDT really does harm birds. A charge made in > Carson's Silent Spring was that bugs evolve around DDT. Do they? spike > > ?I know this one fact: in Louisiana the brown pelican, the state bird, > nearly went into extinction because of DDT. > ?For an opinion, I think all bugs (meaning bacteria and viruses, eh?) evolve around whatever it is that they encounter - and fast! Maybe even molds. Biologists, where are you? 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 johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Mar 20 02:08:23 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 19 Mar 2016 22:08:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 9:12 PM, spike wrote: > I haven't followed it but there should be plenty of evidence by now to > answer whether or not DDT really does harm birds. DDT does kill birds and that's bad, but DDT could also save the lives of 880,000 people a year and that's good. Choices need to be made. > A charge made in Carson's Silent Spring was that bugs evolve around DDT. I think it was Michael Crichton ? ? who said that Silent Spring ? ? has killed more people than Mein Kampf. ? ? That charge ? ? sounds grossly unfair , ? ? but when you ? ? actually work the numbers.... ? ?John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Sun Mar 20 11:50:49 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:50:49 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Malaria conspiracy theory Message-ID: Can we have some facts please? WHO Malaria Fact sheet Updated January 2016 Quotes: Between 2000 and 2015, malaria incidence among populations at risk (the rate of new cases) fell by 37% globally. In that same period, malaria death rates among populations at risk fell by 60% globally among all age groups, and by 65% among children under 5. Sub-Saharan Africa carries a disproportionately high share of the global malaria burden. In 2015, the region was home to 88% of malaria cases and 90% of malaria deaths. --------------- i.e. since DDT use was restricted (not banned) malaria cases have been reducing. DDT was mainly banned worldwide for widespread agricultural use only. For more info and many, many references, see: Quotes: At peak DDT use, roughly from 1958 to 1963, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated malaria deaths world wide at 5 million per year, declining to about 4 million per year by 1963. New pharmaceutical regimens, and renewed vigor in prevention campaigns, kicked in about 1999. Since then, malaria deaths have fallen, from over a million, to about 500,000 per year. Total infections dropped to about 200 million per year ? a 60% reduction since WHO ended the eradication campaign. Promising and encouraging progress against malaria spurs talk once again of eradication of the disease. But there is still much work to do, and very thorny problems to solve ? like drug-resistant malaria, and pesticide resistant mosquitoes. --------------- Note that these big reductions in malaria deaths happened while populations were rapidly increasing. And running health campaigns in poverty-stricken areas in Africa faces many problems. BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Mar 20 14:29:52 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 09:29:52 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 9:08 PM, John Clark wrote: > On Sat, Mar 19, 2016 at 9:12 PM, spike wrote: > > > I haven't followed it but there should be plenty of evidence by now to >> answer whether or not DDT really does harm birds. > > > DDT does kill birds and that's bad, but DDT could also save the lives of > 880,000 people a year and that's good. Choices need to be made. > > > > A charge made in Carson's Silent Spring was that bugs evolve around > DDT. > > I > think it was Michael Crichton > ? ? > who said that Silent Spring > ? ? > has killed more people than Mein Kampf. > ? ? > That charge > ? ? > sounds > grossly > unfair > , > ? ? > but when you > ? ? > actually work the numbers.... > > ? ?John K Clark > > ?Just as I, as a liberal, have to defend myself from conservatives in this group from being grouped with the wildest leftists you can find, I have to say that I am an environmentalist, and you should not automatically believe that I am for every single thing the radical environmentalists do. I am for GMO, for example. YES to golden rice! Calling every environmentalist an ecofreak is not good thinking?. It's stereotyping and it's painting every member of a group with the colors of the most radical. Let's keep it rational. 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 Sun Mar 20 15:54:45 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 08:54:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <004501d182c0$d3795150$7a6bf3f0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace ? ?>?Just as I, as a liberal, have to defend myself from conservatives in this group from being grouped with the wildest leftists you can find, I have to say that I am an environmentalist, and you should not automatically believe that I am for every single thing the radical environmentalists do?Let's keep it rational. bill w Ja! Our current USA system of bifurcated right/left politics makes for some odd bedfellows indeed. I am surprised that conservatives and conservation do not seem to go together all that much. The natural-is-good crowd if anything seem to lean left as a group. That seems so paradoxical to me. Clearly this whole salad needs to be tossed and remixed. This is the year to do it. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Mar 20 16:59:38 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 12:59:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 William Flynn Wallace wrote: > ?> ? > I am an environmentalist, and you should not automatically believe that I > am for every single thing the radical environmentalists do. > I am for GMO, for example. YES to golden rice! > ?Good, but then you are not an average middle of the road environmentalist, you are a radical environmentalist and I guess I am too. ? > ?> ? > Calling every environmentalist an ecofreak is not good thinking?. It's > stereotyping > Yes ?, but you almost make it sound like ? ? stereotyping ? ? is a bad thing. Who caused millions of people to die unnecessarily from malaria? ?Average middle of the road environmentalists ? , aka ecofreaks. Who caused millions of children to go blind? ?Average m iddle of the road environmentalists . Who killed nuclear energy even though it has a better safety record than any other energy source and produced no greenhouse gasses? Average m iddle of the road environmentalists . ?> ? > Let's keep it rational ?If you want a rational conversation then environmentalists ? are not the ones to talk to.? Calling every environmentalist a ecofreak ?would not be? strictly true, but it ? wouldn't be a? bad first approximation of the truth. The environmental movement that started off so well has been hijacked by nuts who think with their gut and not their brain. John K Clark > > > >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Mar 20 17:54:15 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 12:54:15 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ja! Our current USA system of bifurcated right/left politics makes for some odd bedfellows indeed. I am surprised that conservatives and conservation do not seem to go together all that much. The natural-is-good crowd if anything seem to lean left as a group. That seems so paradoxical to me. Clearly this whole salad needs to be tossed and remixed. This is the year to do it. ------------------- I do not know if I am a radical or not. But I do seriously wonder why the research that is so sorely needed before we put chemicals on crops or anything else that goes into foods is not done. Oh I know why - politics, payoffs, money under the table, corruption at every level. The same goes for the FDA - why do we see so many recalls of drugs, so many lawyers advertising to file lawsuits against drug makers? Not enough research. Go to the extreme - buy organic foods. Something an individual can do, as opposed to doing our own drug research. (actually I am doing my own drug research by taking the the doctor orders and actin g as a guinea pig) Google for foreign workers who tend crops dying of cancer. Look at regulations allowing foreign food to be imported here with chemicals on them that are NOT allowed on our own farms. I don't think environmentalists of any stripe need to be the only ones to answer John's questions: the whole world has not stepped up and supported whatever it takes to deal with these fatal diseases and the conditions that cause them and the research needed to combat them. The rift between rich and poor, individuals and nations, is getting worse, as everybody knows, and that will cause much trouble in the years to come. We volunteer, we do foreign aid, we support the Red Cross, etc. etc. and still the numbers that John quotes are still happening. A lot of what we give overseas is skimmed at the highest levels - or just totally taken over. Or we give tractors with no parts and no mechanics to fix them or money for gas. As Spike says, this whole salad needs to be tossed too. So - it's just not enough. And I have no answers to how to get people to sell their yachts and 20 million dollar houses, or even just to give a bit each month for world hunger, etc. The South donates a lot of money to churches, which for the most part goes to building more churches. Salvation Army a big exception - those people are serious about their charity. bill w On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:59 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > >> ?> ? >> I am an environmentalist, and you should not automatically believe that I >> am for every single thing the radical environmentalists do. >> I am for GMO, for example. YES to golden rice! >> > > ?Good, but then you are not an average middle of the road > environmentalist, you are a radical environmentalist and I guess I am too. > ? > > >> ?> ? >> Calling every environmentalist an ecofreak is not good thinking?. It's >> stereotyping >> > > Yes > ?, > but you almost make it sound like > ? ? > stereotyping > ? ? > is a bad thing. Who caused millions of people to die unnecessarily from > malaria? > ?Average > middle of the road environmentalists > ? , > aka ecofreaks. Who caused millions of children to go blind? ?Average > m > iddle of the road environmentalists > . Who killed nuclear energy even though it has a better safety record than > any other energy source and produced no greenhouse gasses? Average > m > iddle of the road environmentalists > . > > ?> ? >> Let's keep it rational > > > ?If you want a rational conversation then > environmentalists > ? are not the ones to talk to.? > Calling every environmentalist a ecofreak > ?would not be? > strictly true, but it > ? wouldn't be a? > bad first approximation of the truth. The environmental movement that > started off so well has been hijacked by nuts who think with their gut and > not their brain. > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 protokol2020 at gmail.com Sun Mar 20 18:19:01 2016 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 19:19:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Go to the extreme - buy organic foods. Some Germans did just that, a few years ago. Then the e-coli took several of them. At first they've tried to put the blame on Spanish cucumbers and tomatoes. Which are grown so non-organically there. But it were some domestic shit, they grew organically in Hamburg. On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 6:54 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Ja! Our current USA system of bifurcated right/left politics makes for > some odd bedfellows indeed. I am surprised that conservatives and > conservation do not seem to go together all that much. The natural-is-good > crowd if anything seem to lean left as a group. That seems so paradoxical > to me. Clearly this whole salad needs to be tossed and remixed. This is > the year to do it. > > ------------------- > > I do not know if I am a radical or not. But I do seriously wonder why the > research that is so sorely needed before we put chemicals on crops or > anything else that goes into foods is not done. Oh I know why - politics, > payoffs, money under the table, corruption at every level. > > The same goes for the FDA - why do we see so many recalls of drugs, so > many lawyers advertising to file lawsuits against drug makers? Not enough > research. > > Go to the extreme - buy organic foods. Something an individual can do, as > opposed to doing our own drug research. (actually I am doing my own drug > research by taking the the doctor orders and actin g as a guinea pig) > > Google for foreign workers who tend crops dying of cancer. Look at > regulations allowing foreign food to be imported here with chemicals on > them that are NOT allowed on our own farms. > > I don't think environmentalists of any stripe need to be the only ones to > answer John's questions: the whole world has not stepped up and supported > whatever it takes to deal with these fatal diseases and the conditions that > cause them and the research needed to combat them. > > The rift between rich and poor, individuals and nations, is getting worse, > as everybody knows, and that will cause much trouble in the years to come. > > We volunteer, we do foreign aid, we support the Red Cross, etc. etc. and > still the numbers that John quotes are still happening. A lot of what we > give overseas is skimmed at the highest levels - or just totally taken > over. Or we give tractors with no parts and no mechanics to fix them or > money for gas. As Spike says, this whole salad needs to be tossed too. > > So - it's just not enough. And I have no answers to how to get people to > sell their yachts and 20 million dollar houses, or even just to give a bit > each month for world hunger, etc. The South donates a lot of money to > churches, which for the most part goes to building more churches. > Salvation Army a big exception - those people are serious about their > charity. > > bill w > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:59 AM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> >> >>> ?> ? >>> I am an environmentalist, and you should not automatically believe that >>> I am for every single thing the radical environmentalists do. >>> I am for GMO, for example. YES to golden rice! >>> >> >> ?Good, but then you are not an average middle of the road >> environmentalist, you are a radical environmentalist and I guess I am too. >> ? >> >> >>> ?> ? >>> Calling every environmentalist an ecofreak is not good thinking?. It's >>> stereotyping >>> >> >> Yes >> ?, >> but you almost make it sound like >> ? ? >> stereotyping >> ? ? >> is a bad thing. Who caused millions of people to die unnecessarily from >> malaria? >> ?Average >> middle of the road environmentalists >> ? , >> aka ecofreaks. Who caused millions of children to go blind? ?Average >> m >> iddle of the road environmentalists >> . Who killed nuclear energy even though it has a better safety record >> than any other energy source and produced no greenhouse gasses? Average >> m >> iddle of the road environmentalists >> . >> >> ?> ? >>> Let's keep it rational >> >> >> ?If you want a rational conversation then >> environmentalists >> ? are not the ones to talk to.? >> Calling every environmentalist a ecofreak >> ?would not be? >> strictly true, but it >> ? wouldn't be a? >> bad first approximation of the truth. The environmental movement that >> started off so well has been hijacked by nuts who think with their gut and >> not their brain. >> >> John K Clark >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> extropy-chat mailing list >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>>> >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> extropy-chat mailing list >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >>> >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> extropy-chat mailing list >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > > -- https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Sun Mar 20 18:32:25 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 11:32:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Organic foods/was Re: bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4BB524BE-6536-4A45-A389-C4DC8E52A394@gmail.com> On Mar 20, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Tomaz Kristan wrote: > > Go to the extreme - buy organic foods. > > Some Germans did just that, a few years ago. Then the e-coli took several of them. At first they've tried to put the blame on Spanish cucumbers and tomatoes. Which are grown so non-organically there. > > But it were some domestic shit, they grew organically in Hamburg. Isn't E. coli in food more a matter of contamination than whether it's organic? Also, doesn't cleaning or cooking take care of most of the problem? If not, given the popularity of organic* foods, why do we not see widespread deaths from eating them? Or am I missing some data here? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst * The term is problematic since it means different things to different people. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Sun Mar 20 18:59:49 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 14:59:49 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I think it's finally time to change the name of this list, to "Bees Institute". -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Mar 20 19:47:56 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 12:47:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] effective charity, was: RE: bees again Message-ID: <00d601d182e1$66fa0990$34ee1cb0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 10:54 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] bees again >>?Ja! Our current USA system of bifurcated right/left politics makes for some odd bedfellows indeed. I am surprised that conservatives and conservation do not seem to go together all that much. The natural-is-good crowd if anything seem to lean left as a group. That seems so paradoxical to me. Clearly this whole salad needs to be tossed and remixed. This is the year to do it. ------------------- >?So - it's just not enough. And I have no answers to how to get people to sell their yachts and 20 million dollar houses? That in itself introduces a new paradox. For people to sell their yachts and 20 million dollar houses requires someone still richer to buy them. So then? how does that help? >?or even just to give a bit each month for world hunger, etc? Anders Sandberg is a man I hope will chime in on that comment. He is active in the Effective Altruism movement, which I find intriguing. You don?t even need to be rich to contribute to that. From what I can tell from reading their lit, a lot of it is smart tech-oriented people coming up with mathematical functions to figure out how to make each dollar given to world hunger do the most good. >? Salvation Army a big exception - those people are serious about their charity?bill w Second that. Of all the local charities, I give to that one because it appears to have a good record for actually giving the money and not worrying much about building an organization. But think about it, for it is not an easy question at all. We know and have seen that some kinds of charity does harm. We know that in some places in the globe where agriculture is a constant struggle, importing food smashes the local market and puts out of business. Charity has to be done with a brain as well as with a heart. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Mar 20 20:06:21 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 13:06:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Organic foods/was Re: bees again In-Reply-To: <4BB524BE-6536-4A45-A389-C4DC8E52A394@gmail.com> References: <4BB524BE-6536-4A45-A389-C4DC8E52A394@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00e401d182e3$f9a8ee80$ecfacb80$@att.net> >? On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan Subject: [ExI] Organic foods/was Re: bees again On Mar 20, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Tomaz Kristan > wrote: >>? Go to the extreme - buy organic foods. Some Germans did just that, a few years ago. Then the e-coli took several of them? >?Isn't E. coli in food more a matter of contamination than whether it's organic? Also, doesn't cleaning or cooking take care of most of the problem? If not, given the popularity of organic* foods, why do we not see widespread deaths from eating them? Or am I missing some data here? Regards, Dan The wife of a college friend went off on a movement which convinced itself that Pasteurizing milk is a bad thing. So they found some local sympathizers and created an organization for collecting and distributing raw milk from crops grown organically and crops fertilized by manure rather than ammonium nitrate (which is a chemical, which is made in a laboratory, which must be evil because it isn?t natural, etc.) This introduces a risk of e. coli and other bacteria from the manure. Raw milk introduces a host of risks. Milk from hormone-free cows fed on only organic crops is reeeeally pricy stuff. But at least you might get sick from it. I advised him to get some personal liability insurance. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From protokol2020 at gmail.com Sun Mar 20 20:20:52 2016 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 21:20:52 +0100 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > Isn't E. coli in food more a matter of contamination than whether it's organic? "Organic" is just an empty buzzword, for some amateur small farmers selling their stuff at high prizes. I can't wait for some real genetically modified food to come to the market. On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 7:59 PM, Will Steinberg wrote: > I think it's finally time to change the name of this list, to "Bees > Institute". > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Mar 20 20:36:56 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 13:36:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Organic foods In-Reply-To: <00e401d182e3$f9a8ee80$ecfacb80$@att.net> References: <4BB524BE-6536-4A45-A389-C4DC8E52A394@gmail.com> <00e401d182e3$f9a8ee80$ecfacb80$@att.net> Message-ID: <3456CCB2-F9B6-44BE-A336-16CDE3291A36@gmail.com> On Mar 20, 2016, at 1:06 PM, spike wrote: > >? On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan > Subject: [ExI] Organic foods/was Re: bees again > > On Mar 20, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Tomaz Kristan wrote: > >>? Go to the extreme - buy organic foods. > > Some Germans did just that, a few years ago. Then the e-coli took several of them? > > >?Isn't E. coli in food more a matter of contamination than whether it's organic? Also, doesn't cleaning or cooking take care of most of the problem? If not, given the popularity of organic* foods, why do we not see widespread deaths from eating them? Or am I missing some data here? Regards, Dan > > The wife of a college friend went off on a movement which convinced itself that Pasteurizing milk is a bad thing. So they found some local sympathizers and created an organization for collecting and distributing raw milk from crops grown organically and crops fertilized by manure rather than ammonium nitrate (which is a chemical, which is made in a laboratory, which must be evil because it isn?t natural, etc.) This introduces a risk of e. coli and other bacteria from the manure. Raw milk introduces a host of risks. Milk from hormone-free cows fed on only organic crops is reeeeally pricy stuff. But at least you might get sick from it. > > I advised him to get some personal liability insurance. > Totally different thing. Raw is not the same as organic. One can obtain raw milk from cows (or other animals) pumped up with hormones and antibiotics and that eat feed that grown from pesticides. And one can obtain milk from cows free of those things that's been pasteurized. Of course, if one is using manure to fertilize, there's a higher chance of contamination overall. Washing, cooking, and avoiding further confirmation* can take of almost all of that. Organic foods overall are more expensive. But I'm not hearing about the deaths we should be noticing according to Tomaz's earlier comments. If you want to argue that it's merely merely w way to separate people from their money, that's one thing. I just don't see the huge safety risk he's insinuating is there. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst * For instance, not having someone with hepatitis or someone who has just handled feces handle your food. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From protokol2020 at gmail.com Sun Mar 20 20:45:52 2016 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 21:45:52 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Organic foods In-Reply-To: <3456CCB2-F9B6-44BE-A336-16CDE3291A36@gmail.com> References: <4BB524BE-6536-4A45-A389-C4DC8E52A394@gmail.com> <00e401d182e3$f9a8ee80$ecfacb80$@att.net> <3456CCB2-F9B6-44BE-A336-16CDE3291A36@gmail.com> Message-ID: > But I'm not hearing about the deaths we should be noticing according to Tomaz's earlier comments And even less problems with this "evil artificial food", some people are so afraid of. On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 9:36 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Mar 20, 2016, at 1:06 PM, spike wrote: > > *>?* *On Behalf Of *Dan TheBookMan > *Subject:* [ExI] Organic foods/was Re: bees again > > > > On Mar 20, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Tomaz Kristan > wrote: > > >>? Go to the extreme - buy organic foods. > > Some Germans did just that, a few years ago. Then the e-coli took several > of them? > > >?Isn't E. coli in food more a matter of contamination than whether it's > organic? Also, doesn't cleaning or cooking take care of most of the > problem? If not, given the popularity of organic* foods, why do we not see > widespread deaths from eating them? Or am I missing some data here? > Regards, Dan > > The wife of a college friend went off on a movement which convinced itself > that Pasteurizing milk is a bad thing. So they found some local > sympathizers and created an organization for collecting and distributing > raw milk from crops grown organically and crops fertilized by manure rather > than ammonium nitrate (which is a chemical, which is made in a laboratory, > which must be evil because it isn?t natural, etc.) This introduces a risk > of e. coli and other bacteria from the manure. Raw milk introduces a host > of risks. Milk from hormone-free cows fed on only organic crops is > reeeeally pricy stuff. But at least you might get sick from it. > > I advised him to get some personal liability insurance. > > > Totally different thing. Raw is not the same as organic. One can obtain > raw milk from cows (or other animals) pumped up with hormones and > antibiotics and that eat feed that grown from pesticides. And one can > obtain milk from cows free of those things that's been pasteurized. > > Of course, if one is using manure to fertilize, there's a higher chance of > contamination overall. Washing, cooking, and avoiding further confirmation* > can take of almost all of that. > > Organic foods overall are more expensive. But I'm not hearing about the > deaths we should be noticing according to Tomaz's earlier comments. If you > want to argue that it's merely merely w way to separate people from their > money, that's one thing. I just don't see the huge safety risk he's > insinuating is there. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books via: > http://author.to/DanUst > > * For instance, not having someone with hepatitis or someone who has just > handled feces handle your food. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 hibbert at mydruthers.com Sun Mar 20 22:22:38 2016 From: hibbert at mydruthers.com (Chris Hibbert) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 15:22:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Campaign Finance and the candidates In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56EF22AE.5060109@mydruthers.com> On Mar 17, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: >> Maybe it isn't this bad in DC, or maybe it's worse. I dunno. But fixing >> campaign financing would seem to help us all and cost us nothing. Who is >> going to lobby for this besides Ralph Nader, Consumer Reports, and the like >> in other words, not contributors? There does seem to be a broad consensus that campaign financing is broken, but I don't think there's broad agreement on which problem needs to be fixed. I don't think I'm alone here in thinking there isn't an actual problem that can be solved with more restrictions. Campaign finance is the kind of speech that should be most protected under our constitution. The primary argument against free speech on political issues seems to be that spending in this way will corrupt public officials, but the campaign finance controls that we have make that more true, not less. And much spending on political speech isn't about a candidate at all. I'm fully in favor of the outcome of the Citizens United decision, which said that people are free to band together to spend their money advocating political positions. Much of the "consensus" that campaign reform is broken agrees with this, but I don't think a majority could be found to agree that that is the problem with our current system. >> We don't like what is going on in Washington. Trump shows us that in >> spades. I would not vote for him for dogcatcher, but we do need someone(s) >> to radically change the way our representatives do their business. I'd agree that Trump's success shows that there are a lot of people who don't like what is going on in Washington. I don't think Trump's success shows that there is a consensus on what the problem is or what should be done about it. One of Trump's strengths is in uniting people who think something is wrong without saying what the problem is or what he advocates doing that would make things better. Adrian Tymes replied: > In theory this is part of what Sanders may attempt...if he can get the > nomination. (Sanders vs. Trump, despite what some say, seems almost > guaranteed not-Trump. Of course, so does Clinton vs. Trump. And that's > assuming Trump isn't on the take, driving out all other Republican > contenders with intent to abdicate his campaign between nomination and > November.) This seems like a narrow viewpoint, which probably derives from being surrounded by people who do not favor Trump. From where I sit (even though I'm in Silicon Valley, and hence surrounded by liberals) it appears that two thirds of the electorate are afraid of Trump, two thirds are afraid of Clinton, and a different two thirds are afraid of Sanders. I'm in the minority (perhaps it's as big as a quarter of the electorate) who thinks it's scary to contemplate any of them being CIC, appointing cabinet heads, and able to issue executive orders. I don't know how it's going to end, but I've heard a fair amount about Trump's ability to grandstand, cast aspersions, and duck away from fair attacks. OTOH, I may be afraid of him the least, since my main complaint is that there's no predicting what he'll try. The policy goals I expect the other to to pursue are worse than that. Chris -- It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but not so easy to turn fish soup back into an aquarium. -- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy. Chris Hibbert hibbert at mydruthers.com http://mydruthers.com From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Mar 20 22:36:48 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 17:36:48 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Organic foods/was Re: bees again In-Reply-To: <00e401d182e3$f9a8ee80$ecfacb80$@att.net> References: <4BB524BE-6536-4A45-A389-C4DC8E52A394@gmail.com> <00e401d182e3$f9a8ee80$ecfacb80$@att.net> Message-ID: spike - Milk from hormone-free cows fed on only organic crops is reeeeally pricy stuff. Not to mention the $27 a pound organic grassfed steaks I saw yesterday at the farmer's market. bilkl w On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 3:06 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *>?* *On Behalf Of *Dan TheBookMan > *Subject:* [ExI] Organic foods/was Re: bees again > > > > On Mar 20, 2016, at 11:19 AM, Tomaz Kristan > wrote: > > >>? Go to the extreme - buy organic foods. > > Some Germans did just that, a few years ago. Then the e-coli took several > of them? > > >?Isn't E. coli in food more a matter of contamination than whether it's > organic? Also, doesn't cleaning or cooking take care of most of the > problem? If not, given the popularity of organic* foods, why do we not see > widespread deaths from eating them? Or am I missing some data here? > Regards, Dan > > > > > > The wife of a college friend went off on a movement which convinced itself > that Pasteurizing milk is a bad thing. So they found some local > sympathizers and created an organization for collecting and distributing > raw milk from crops grown organically and crops fertilized by manure rather > than ammonium nitrate (which is a chemical, which is made in a laboratory, > which must be evil because it isn?t natural, etc.) This introduces a risk > of e. coli and other bacteria from the manure. Raw milk introduces a host > of risks. Milk from hormone-free cows fed on only organic crops is > reeeeally pricy stuff. But at least you might get sick from it. > > I advised him to get some personal liability insurance. > > 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 Sun Mar 20 23:38:32 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 18:38:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Campaign Finance and the candidates In-Reply-To: <56EF22AE.5060109@mydruthers.com> References: <56EF22AE.5060109@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: Campaign finance is the kind of speech that should be most protected under our constitution Chris I am not talking about the ability to contribute to campaigns. I am talking about the ability of the candidates to dip into it as if it were personal money, like my post about Mississippi the other day. Campaign money should be spent on campaigns, no? bill w On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 5:22 PM, Chris Hibbert wrote: > On Mar 17, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: > >> Maybe it isn't this bad in DC, or maybe it's worse. I dunno. But fixing >>> campaign financing would seem to help us all and cost us nothing. Who is >>> going to lobby for this besides Ralph Nader, Consumer Reports, and the >>> like >>> in other words, not contributors? >>> >> > There does seem to be a broad consensus that campaign financing is broken, > but I don't think there's broad agreement on which problem needs to be > fixed. I don't think I'm alone here in thinking there isn't an actual > problem that can be solved with more restrictions. Campaign finance is the > kind of speech that should be most protected under our constitution. The > primary argument against free speech on political issues seems to be that > spending in this way will corrupt public officials, but the campaign > finance controls that we have make that more true, not less. And much > spending on political speech isn't about a candidate at all. I'm fully in > favor of the outcome of the Citizens United decision, which said that > people are free to band together to spend their money advocating political > positions. Much of the "consensus" that campaign reform is broken agrees > with this, but I don't think a majority could be found to agree that that > is the problem with our current system. > > We don't like what is going on in Washington. Trump shows us that in >>> spades. I would not vote for him for dogcatcher, but we do need >>> someone(s) >>> to radically change the way our representatives do their business. >>> >> > I'd agree that Trump's success shows that there are a lot of people who > don't like what is going on in Washington. I don't think Trump's success > shows that there is a consensus on what the problem is or what should be > done about it. One of Trump's strengths is in uniting people who think > something is wrong without saying what the problem is or what he advocates > doing that would make things better. > > Adrian Tymes replied: > >> In theory this is part of what Sanders may attempt...if he can get the >> nomination. (Sanders vs. Trump, despite what some say, seems almost >> guaranteed not-Trump. Of course, so does Clinton vs. Trump. And that's >> assuming Trump isn't on the take, driving out all other Republican >> contenders with intent to abdicate his campaign between nomination and >> November.) >> > > This seems like a narrow viewpoint, which probably derives from being > surrounded by people who do not favor Trump. From where I sit (even though > I'm in Silicon Valley, and hence surrounded by liberals) it appears that > two thirds of the electorate are afraid of Trump, two thirds are afraid of > Clinton, and a different two thirds are afraid of Sanders. I'm in the > minority (perhaps it's as big as a quarter of the electorate) who thinks > it's scary to contemplate any of them being CIC, appointing cabinet heads, > and able to issue executive orders. > > I don't know how it's going to end, but I've heard a fair amount about > Trump's ability to grandstand, cast aspersions, and duck away from fair > attacks. OTOH, I may be afraid of him the least, since my main complaint is > that there's no predicting what he'll try. The policy goals I expect the > other to to pursue are worse than that. > > Chris > -- > It is easy to turn an aquarium into fish soup, but not so > easy to turn fish soup back into an aquarium. > -- Lech Walesa on reverting to a market economy. > > Chris Hibbert > hibbert at mydruthers.com > http://mydruthers.com > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Mar 20 23:40:23 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 18:40:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] effective charity, was: RE: bees again In-Reply-To: <00d601d182e1$66fa0990$34ee1cb0$@att.net> References: <00d601d182e1$66fa0990$34ee1cb0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 2:47 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Sunday, March 20, 2016 10:54 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] bees again > > > > >>?Ja! Our current USA system of bifurcated right/left politics makes > for some odd bedfellows indeed. I am surprised that conservatives and > conservation do not seem to go together all that much. The natural-is-good > crowd if anything seem to lean left as a group. That seems so paradoxical > to me. Clearly this whole salad needs to be tossed and remixed. This is > the year to do it. > > ------------------- > > > > > > > > > > >?So - it's just not enough. And I have no answers to how to get people > to sell their yachts and 20 million dollar houses? > > > > That in itself introduces a new paradox. For people to sell their yachts > and 20 million dollar houses requires someone still richer to buy them. So > then? how does that help? > > > > > > >?or even just to give a bit each month for world hunger, etc? > > > > Anders Sandberg is a man I hope will chime in on that comment. He is > active in the Effective Altruism movement, which I find intriguing. You > don?t even need to be rich to contribute to that. From what I can tell > from reading their lit, a lot of it is smart tech-oriented people coming up > with mathematical functions to figure out how to make each dollar given to > world hunger do the most good. > > > > > > >? Salvation Army a big exception - those people are serious about their > charity?bill w > > > > Second that. Of all the local charities, I give to that one because it > appears to have a good record for actually giving the money and not > worrying much about building an organization. > > > > But think about it, for it is not an easy question at all. We know and > have seen that some kinds of charity does harm. We know that in some > places in the globe where agriculture is a constant struggle, importing > food smashes the local market and puts out of business. > > > > Charity has to be done with a brain as well as with a heart. > > > > 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 Sun Mar 20 23:43:37 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 16:43:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Campaign Finance and the candidates In-Reply-To: References: <56EF22AE.5060109@mydruthers.com> Message-ID: <007301d18302$539964b0$facc2e10$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Subject: Re: [ExI] Campaign Finance and the candidates Campaign finance is the kind of speech that should be most protected under our constitution Chris I am not talking about the ability to contribute to campaigns. I am talking about the ability of the candidates to dip into it as if it were personal money, like my post about Mississippi the other day. Campaign money should be spent on campaigns, no? bill w Prediction: after this fall?s US elections, every serious candidate will have a family-controlled charity. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Mar 21 00:01:55 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 17:01:55 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Organic foods/was Re: bees again In-Reply-To: References: <4BB524BE-6536-4A45-A389-C4DC8E52A394@gmail.com> <00e401d182e3$f9a8ee80$ecfacb80$@att.net> Message-ID: <009801d18304$e276f650$a764e2f0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Sunday, March 20, 2016 3:37 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Organic foods/was Re: bees again spike - Milk from hormone-free cows fed on only organic crops is reeeeally pricy stuff. Not to mention the $27 a pound organic grassfed steaks I saw yesterday at the farmer's market. bilkl w I see it as a good thing billW. You noted earlier that there are people with yachts and 20 million dollar mansions and things. At some point, you just start naturally reaching for silliness, if you have sufficient money and no inclination to support things like Effective Altruism. Or? there is a mindset where really rich people give the amount of their income, so they don?t actually pay any taxes: a person with 100 million bucks for instance might have a realized income of 4 million bucks, so they donate all of it to a charity, such as the Clinton Foundation, and it is all deductible; no tax bill. If you own 100 million bucks, you won?t miss 4 million for ?charity.? The mindset is they cannot give more, because it wouldn?t be tax deductible. So they live it up on the rest. OK then, imagine yourself owning a huge pile of money. Somebody somewhere is going to offer organic grass-fed, free-range happy cows who have round-the-clock groomers and people petting them and following them around, shooing away the flies, talking nice to them, might cost 100 bucks a pound. But hell, if you have sufficient money, it doesn?t matter whether you pay 10 bucks for the ordinary beef or 100 for pampered beef; it?s all the same, a bit of noise down there in the last three digits when you have nine of them. If you had nine digits, you might use some of it to buy goofy stuff like yachts seldom used, a house where you don?t even know how many rooms it has because you haven?t actually discovered all of them yet. All this keeps money in circulation. It creates jobs for construction workers, cow petters and such. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 00:29:17 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 20:29:17 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 William Flynn Wallace wrote: > ?>? > I do seriously wonder why the research that is so sorely needed before we > put chemicals on crops or anything else that goes into foods is not done. > ?What's the point? An enormous amount of research has already being done to make our food safe, and that's one reason people live longer than they ever have before, but no finite amount of research will convince environmentalists that genetic engineered food is safe or that pesticides aren't necessarily evil , just as no finite number of null results will convince the ESP people that it's all bullshit. If somebody's opinions were not formed by facts then they can not be destroyed by facts either; so no matter many times you've already tested it they'll always want you to test it one more time. Always one more time. And that's not a bad definition of infinity. ? ?> ? > why do we see so many recalls of drugs, so many lawyers advertising to > file lawsuits against drug makers? Not enough research. > ?Or too many lawyers. ? ?> ? > Go to the extreme - buy organic foods. > ?I prefer inorganic foods like metal and rocks. ? ?John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 04:32:23 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 00:32:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 1:54 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > I do not know if I am a radical or not. But I do seriously wonder why the > research that is so sorely needed before we put chemicals on crops or > anything else that goes into foods is not done. Oh I know why - politics, > payoffs, money under the table, corruption at every level. > > The same goes for the FDA - why do we see so many recalls of drugs, so > many lawyers advertising to file lawsuits against drug makers? Not enough > research. > ### There is way too much research required before food or medications can be marketed. The FDA, both as it pertains to food and to drugs, should be abolished. The FDA does not provide net benefit in terms of safety. It slows down scientific progress, imposes insane laws (e.g. forbidding the use of carcinogenic substances in food), increases prices of food while lowering its quality. The recalls occur despite the FDA forcing pharma to burn literally hundreds of millions of dollars per drug to get to market. Predatory lawyers always are ready to extort money from pharma under any pretext. The sale of drugs should be covered by contract law, with options for the vendor to refuse liability. --------------- > Go to the extreme - buy organic foods. Something an individual can do, as > opposed to doing our own drug research. (actually I am doing my own drug > research by taking the the doctor orders and actin g as a guinea pig) > ### Organic food is a religion. Completely non-scientific, a hodgepodge of wishful thinking and anti-technological superstition. I drink grass-fed milk because it's full of omega-3 acids but otherwise I tend to stay away from organics - I don't like the feeling I partake in a cult, and have to pay for it double. -------------- > The rift between rich and poor, individuals and nations, is getting worse, > as everybody knows, and that will cause much trouble in the years to come. > ### Frankly, I don't care. The poor have been getting richer for decades and I am supposed to feel guilty about doing even better? ----------------- > So - it's just not enough. And I have no answers to how to get people to > sell their yachts and 20 million dollar houses, or even just to give a bit > each month for world hunger, etc. > ### There is no "world hunger". There is widespread evil and stupidity, and, disappointing as it may seem, charity is not going to solve this problem. Which does not mean I would be against charity - to contrary, it is one of the noblest human impulses - but it still won't solve the Third World's problems. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 04:41:41 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 00:41:41 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Organic foods/was Re: bees again In-Reply-To: References: <4BB524BE-6536-4A45-A389-C4DC8E52A394@gmail.com> <00e401d182e3$f9a8ee80$ecfacb80$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 6:36 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > > Not to mention the $27 a pound organic grassfed steaks I saw yesterday at > the farmer's market. > ### 100-day dry-aged grass-fed Wagyu beef is actually worth the money, as long as the cowboys know how to feed grass to cows. Contrary to popular opinion, proper fattening of animals on pastures requires considerable expertise and attention to detail. When done right, the beef is very fat, the chemical makeup is much different from corn-fed beef, the texture is heavenly. With a slice of foie gras on top, or perhaps Roquefort, rare to medium rare ribeye is a feast one remembers for years. Doesn't need to be organic, just good. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 11:56:42 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 07:56:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Malaria conspiracy theory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What's the conspiracy, exactly? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 15:12:38 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:12:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ### There is way too much research required before food or medications can be marketed. The FDA, both as it pertains to food and to drugs, should be abolished. The FDA does not provide net benefit in terms of safety. It slows down scientific progress, imposes insane laws (e.g. forbidding the use of carcinogenic substances in food), increases prices of food while lowering its quality. The recalls occur despite the FDA forcing pharma to burn literally hundreds of millions of dollars per drug to get to market. Predatory lawyers always are ready to extort money from pharma under any pretext. The sale of drugs should be covered by contract law, with options for the vendor to refuse liability. Let me remind you that less than half of the studies of drugs for medical use are double blind - the gold standard. That's why there are so many recalls. I just can't seem to find anything wrong with forbidding carcinogens in food. I'd like to be enlightened about that. Didn't look it up, but I'll bet we spend a far smaller percentage of our income on food than most places in the world. Lawyers cannot win cases with no supporting data. I'd also like to hear about the lowering of food quality by restricting chemicals. Farmers are the worst: take the mouth of the Mississippi: below it are hundreds of square miles of dead water. Dead because of runoff from farms that put too much fertilizer and other chemicals on their fields. Oyster beds get polluted and we can't eat them. Fishermen go broke. If I were a real ecofreak I'd drown you in data showing just how bad the situation is. bill w On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki < rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 1:54 PM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > >> >> I do not know if I am a radical or not. But I do seriously wonder why >> the research that is so sorely needed before we put chemicals on crops or >> anything else that goes into foods is not done. Oh I know why - politics, >> payoffs, money under the table, corruption at every level. >> >> The same goes for the FDA - why do we see so many recalls of drugs, so >> many lawyers advertising to file lawsuits against drug makers? Not enough >> research. >> > > ### There is way too much research required before food or medications can > be marketed. The FDA, both as it pertains to food and to drugs, should be > abolished. The FDA does not provide net benefit in terms of safety. It > slows down scientific progress, imposes insane laws (e.g. forbidding the > use of carcinogenic substances in food), increases prices of food while > lowering its quality. The recalls occur despite the FDA forcing pharma to > burn literally hundreds of millions of dollars per drug to get to market. > Predatory lawyers always are ready to extort money from pharma under any > pretext. The sale of drugs should be covered by contract law, with options > for the vendor to refuse liability. > > --------------- > >> Go to the extreme - buy organic foods. Something an individual can do, >> as opposed to doing our own drug research. (actually I am doing my own >> drug research by taking the the doctor orders and actin g as a guinea pig) >> > > ### Organic food is a religion. Completely non-scientific, a hodgepodge of > wishful thinking and anti-technological superstition. I drink grass-fed > milk because it's full of omega-3 acids but otherwise I tend to stay away > from organics - I don't like the feeling I partake in a cult, and have to > pay for it double. > > -------------- > >> The rift between rich and poor, individuals and nations, is getting >> worse, as everybody knows, and that will cause much trouble in the years to >> come. >> > > ### Frankly, I don't care. The poor have been getting richer for decades > and I am supposed to feel guilty about doing even better? > > ----------------- > >> So - it's just not enough. And I have no answers to how to get people to >> sell their yachts and 20 million dollar houses, or even just to give a bit >> each month for world hunger, etc. >> > > ### There is no "world hunger". There is widespread evil and stupidity, > and, disappointing as it may seem, charity is not going to solve this > problem. > > Which does not mean I would be against charity - to contrary, it is one of > the noblest human impulses - but it still won't solve the Third World's > problems. > > 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 atymes at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 15:37:16 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 08:37:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 20, 2016 12:01 PM, "Will Steinberg" wrote: > I think it's finally time to change the name of this list, to "Bees Institute". Don't be a buzzkill. I beelieve other topics are still discussed. For example, how far are we from radiotelepathy (not just speech via radio, but sharing sensory impressions and mental pictures), and would that make us more of a hive mind? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 15:55:28 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 08:55:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Your vote doesn't count? Message-ID: <8CC6EA17-382F-42E5-B99F-8A2D068AB3BC@gmail.com> http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/your-vote-doesnt-count I've never seem anyone brandish the "voting is fun" argument. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 16:06:13 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:06:13 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 21, 2016 11:38 AM, "Adrian Tymes" wrote: > > On Mar 20, 2016 12:01 PM, "Will Steinberg" wrote: > > I think it's finally time to change the name of this list, to "Bees Institute". > > Don't be a buzzkill. I beelieve other topics are still discussed. For example, how far are we from radiotelepathy (not just speech via radio, but sharing sensory impressions and mental pictures), and would that make us more of a hive mind? > Buzzkill? That stings, Adrian. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 16:09:55 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:09:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: ### Organic food is a religion. Completely non-scientific, a hodgepodge of wishful thinking and anti-technological superstition. I drink grass-fed milk because it's full of omega-3 acids but otherwise I tend to stay away from organics - I don't like the feeling I partake in a cult, and have to pay for it double. Gee - I've always wanted to be in a cult and now I find that I am in one and have been for over 40 years - organic gardener (and now I'm religious too?). I have never, ever had to break down and spray etc. to get rid of an infestation of bugs. There are natural fungicides that work well and just a soap spray will kill bugs effectively. OG used to be sort of cult-like, beginning in the 40s. Now we have certified farms. Yea!! And heirloom varieties, and seedsavers and a lot more. Use of a lot of manure is a very very old practice and saves dumping it in streams. Chemical fertilizer kills worms - you won't find one in a thousand acres of the usual treated field. Yes, I know pouring grits on fire ants won't work, so I do use chemicals very selectively and carefully and I don't put on more than the label calls for thinking it will work better (unlike most farmers). Don't get me started about the FDA etc. How do you like 8 year old girls going through puberty and getting pregnant at 9 because of hormones in pork etc.? How do you like superbugs getting immune to antibiotics because of their addition to chicken and hog and cattle feed? Yes, they are getting rid of these and it's about time. Thanks to the ecofreaks, I suppose. Yeah, let's deregulate, close down the feds and let Ortho run the country. This is insane. Let the pigs etc. eat anything we feed them, and who cares about spongiform bovine encephalopathy? AAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! bill w On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 10:37 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Mar 20, 2016 12:01 PM, "Will Steinberg" > wrote: > > I think it's finally time to change the name of this list, to "Bees > Institute". > > Don't be a buzzkill. I beelieve other topics are still discussed. For > example, how far are we from radiotelepathy (not just speech via radio, but > sharing sensory impressions and mental pictures), and would that make us > more of a hive mind? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mar 21 16:18:26 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:18:26 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:12 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?> ? > Lawyers cannot win cases with no supporting data. ?OJ John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 16:30:44 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:30:44 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Organic foods In-Reply-To: <3456CCB2-F9B6-44BE-A336-16CDE3291A36@gmail.com> References: <4BB524BE-6536-4A45-A389-C4DC8E52A394@gmail.com> <00e401d182e3$f9a8ee80$ecfacb80$@att.net> <3456CCB2-F9B6-44BE-A336-16CDE3291A36@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: ?> ? > Raw is not the same as organic. One can obtain raw milk from cows (or > other animals) pumped up with hormones and antibiotics and that eat feed > that grown from pesticides. And one can obtain milk from cows free of those > things that's been pasteurized. ?"Organic" means carbon based, so cobra venom is organic and it's not pumped up with hormones and antibiotics ? either. But I do think you're right to worry about ? antibiotics ?, we feed way too much to our livestock and it creates bacterial resistance. John K Clark ? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Mon Mar 21 16:19:31 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 16:19:31 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Fwd: Essay Competition on Preparation for Global Food Catastrophes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56F01F13.7030109@aleph.se> -------- Forwarded Message -------- Subject: Essay Competition on Preparation for Global Food Catastrophes Date: Sun, 20 Mar 2016 16:28:17 -0500 From: Dave Denkenberger To: Dave Denkenberger Thanks again for contributing to the food without the sun project. I am sponsoring an essay contest to get more people involved. It would be great if you could forward the announcement below. For the professors, even better would be if you could assign this to your students, possibly as extra credit. Many disciplines are relevant (April 15 deadline). Best regards, Dave /Essay Competition on Preparation for Global Food Catastrophes/ David Denkenberger is funding a 1000 word essay competition that is hosted by the Future of Humanity Institute. It has a $2000 grand prize and $500 prizes in the categories of technology, economics, and policy. The deadline is April 15, 2016. The goals of the competition are to raise awareness, get new ideas, and hopefully motivate more research. Please share with individuals or departments you think would be interested in applying. Anyone can submit. David Denkenberger, Ph.D., EIT Book: Feeding Everyone No Matter What: Managing Food Security After Global Catastrophe http://www.amazon.com/Feeding-Everyone-Matter-What-Catastrophe/dp/0128021500 Please consider the environment before printing this email -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Mon Mar 21 16:59:53 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 16:59:53 +0000 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56F02889.4060503@aleph.se> On 2016-03-15 22:45, Kelly Anderson wrote: > To addiction? Why did addiction evolve? Why did fractures evolve? There are limits to what evolution can do, and it optimizes for average performance in an environment. So if bones occasionally break with evnetually fatal outcomes it is OK if the fitness cost of that is smaller than the cost due to making them heavier. And rare events will have extra weak and noisy selection pressure. Same thing for addiction. The kinds of brains and motivation we have are vulnerable to some chemical and behavioral signals, but the fitness losses due to addiction in the natural environment are small and the costs of making addiction-resistant motivation systems are likely high (you need to rewire very fitness-relevant systems with highly preserved neurochemistry). It is worth noting that drug use is not uncommon among animals, but addiction is more rare. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 17:02:17 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 10:02:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Organic foods In-Reply-To: References: <4BB524BE-6536-4A45-A389-C4DC8E52A394@gmail.com> <00e401d182e3$f9a8ee80$ecfacb80$@att.net> <3456CCB2-F9B6-44BE-A336-16CDE3291A36@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8068C0EA-EF98-4632-A559-F7E5C29B6ADE@gmail.com> On Mar 21, 2016, at 9:30 AM, John Clark wrote: > >> On Sun, Mar 20, 2016 at 4:36 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> >> ?> ?Raw is not the same as organic. One can obtain raw milk from cows (or other animals) pumped up with hormones and antibiotics and that eat feed that grown from pesticides. And one can obtain milk from cows free of those things that's been pasteurized. > > ?"Organic" means carbon based, That's not how it's used in the context of phrases like 'organic foods.' > so cobra venom is organic and it's not pumped up with hormones and antibiotics? either. But I do think you're right to worry about ?antibiotics?, we feed way too much to our livestock and it creates bacterial resistance. Where have I expressed any opinion here concerning antibiotics? I was merely trying to correct what I believe to be an inaccurate statement about organic foods. Please note I did not say anything about organic foods being otherwise better or healthier. I simply did not offer any view on that matter. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Mon Mar 21 17:02:30 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:02:30 +0000 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: <42E87E77-2C94-43B9-96F4-71E5C5B21C41@taramayastales.com> References: <42E87E77-2C94-43B9-96F4-71E5C5B21C41@taramayastales.com> Message-ID: <56F02926.7080700@aleph.se> The problem is that we need the nicotinergic receptors for memory and attention. The dopamine receptor variants involved are also pretty important for personality. Schizophrenic people also tend to smoke, often explained as self-medication. On 2016-03-17 18:49, Tara Maya wrote: > Interesting! I wonder if we could edit out the gene that cause nicotine addiction if it would have the side benefit of making one less susceptible to cults! That would probably be a huge boon to civilization. I suspect cults of all sizes, some a billion adherents strong, have done more damage than smoking... > > >> On Mar 16, 2016, at 9:18 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >> >> It's genetic. Only a minority (5-10%?) of people can be addicted to >> opiates at all. The genes involved are not yet understood, but it >> should not be hard to do given the big data bases like 23andMe. >> >> Addition to nicotine is better understood. I don't think anyone who >> has a double dose of the D5 version of the dopamine receptor gene who >> is addicted to nicotine has ever gotten off some form of nicotine. >> >> There may be a cross susceptibility between nicotine and cult rewards. >> The scientologists are well known for their very high rate of smoking. >> >> Keith >> >> 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 -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Mon Mar 21 17:15:12 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:15:12 +0000 Subject: [ExI] effective charity, was: RE: bees again In-Reply-To: <00d601d182e1$66fa0990$34ee1cb0$@att.net> References: <00d601d182e1$66fa0990$34ee1cb0$@att.net> Message-ID: <56F02C20.5080206@aleph.se> On 2016-03-20 19:47, spike wrote: > > > >?or even just to give a bit each month for world hunger, etc? > > Anders Sandberg is a man I hope will chime in on that comment. He is > active in the Effective Altruism movement, which I find intriguing. > You don?t even need to be rich to contribute to that. From what I can > tell from reading their lit, a lot of it is smart tech-oriented people > coming up with mathematical functions to figure out how to make each > dollar given to world hunger do the most good. > > ... > > Charity has to be done with a brain as well as with a heart. > Exactly. Effective altruism is very much based on a consequentialist approach: it is better if the results of your donation are better. In some domains we can measure the performance (quality adjusted life years per dollar) and compare, in other domains we merely have dominance/comparision arguments to get priorities roughly right. FHI is working on thinking about the really uncertain domains where we do not even know how to compare things, like existential risk. http://www.givewell.org/ https://www.centreforeffectivealtruism.org/ -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 17:45:40 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 12:45:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:18 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 11:12 AM, William Flynn Wallace < > foozler83 at gmail.com> wrote: > > ?> ? >> Lawyers cannot win cases with no supporting data. > > > ?OJ > > John K Clark? > > ?I think it was the prosecutor that had no supporting data. 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 atymes at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 18:54:18 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 11:54:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 21, 2016 9:07 AM, "Will Steinberg" wrote: > On Mar 21, 2016 11:38 AM, "Adrian Tymes" wrote: > > On Mar 20, 2016 12:01 PM, "Will Steinberg" wrote: > > > I think it's finally time to change the name of this list, to "Bees Institute". > > > > Don't be a buzzkill. I beelieve other topics are still discussed. For example, how far are we from radiotelepathy (not just speech via radio, but sharing sensory impressions and mental pictures), and would that make us more of a hive mind? > > Buzzkill? That stings, Adrian. Sorry, didn't mean it in the beelittling sense. It's just that this is a honey of a list. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 19:39:06 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:39:06 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction Message-ID: General question about addiction: just what constitutes addiction? I think it's very fuzzy. If one bases it on the appearance of withdrawal symptoms of a physical sort, then I am an addict, as I have been taking Tramadol for decades for my back pain. When I started adding some decaf to my regular coffee beans I noticed some withdrawal. Ditto when I quit alcohol and tobacco. I must be some sort of poster boy for those who get addicted and then get unaddicted. Quitting tobacco was by far the worst, followed by the time I ran short of Tramadol and could not get any more fore several days. I was told when I started that one that it was not addicting! Talk about needing more study of a drug......Curiously I had no withdrawal from quitting alcohol, despite drinking a fifth of vodka a day. Felt better immediately. I might accept gambling as an addiction but not sex or shopping. It can't just be something that one overdoes. It has hurt one's life in some way. You can't just miss it if you don't have it. I might have to start planting on my roof if I want any more roses, as I have 120 now and no more room. Will I have withdrawal? Stay tuned and see. On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:02 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > The problem is that we need the nicotinergic receptors for memory and > attention. The dopamine receptor variants involved are also pretty > important for personality. > > Schizophrenic people also tend to smoke, often explained as > self-medication. > > > On 2016-03-17 18:49, Tara Maya wrote: > >> Interesting! I wonder if we could edit out the gene that cause nicotine >> addiction if it would have the side benefit of making one less susceptible >> to cults! That would probably be a huge boon to civilization. I suspect >> cults of all sizes, some a billion adherents strong, have done more damage >> than smoking... >> >> >> On Mar 16, 2016, at 9:18 PM, Keith Henson wrote: >>> >>> It's genetic. Only a minority (5-10%?) of people can be addicted to >>> opiates at all. The genes involved are not yet understood, but it >>> should not be hard to do given the big data bases like 23andMe. >>> >>> Addition to nicotine is better understood. I don't think anyone who >>> has a double dose of the D5 version of the dopamine receptor gene who >>> is addicted to nicotine has ever gotten off some form of nicotine. >>> >>> There may be a cross susceptibility between nicotine and cult rewards. >>> The scientologists are well known for their very high rate of smoking. >>> >>> Keith >>> >>> 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 >> > > -- > 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 atymes at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 20:05:42 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:05:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 21, 2016 12:40 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: > I might accept gambling as an addiction but not sex or shopping. It can't just be something that one overdoes. It has hurt one's life in some way. Sex: ill-considered relationships with the some intent of getting laid (STDs and pregnancy among the most obvious consequences, but by no means the only ones). Potential justification of and predilection toward socially unacceptable (even with context) actions, most notably rape. Spending to potentially ruinous degrees on things that promise sex whether or not they deliver, without regard for side effects. And that's just the potential harms I can immediately think of. Shopping is more of a spending addiction. Say, spending $1000 that was needed for rent or mortgage on shoes, in pursuit of immediate gratification: you have stuff right away, and that you're going to be kicked out of your home at the end of the month doesn't directly harm you until the end of the month. This is essentially the same problem as gambling addiction, save that gambling has the small chance of paying off to further the addiction. Window shopping is only harmful if one spends so much time on it that it affects one's ability to hold a job, or similarly important alternate uses of time...or if, as is more likely to be a problem, it builds temptation to actually spend money (in amounts that hamper one's ability to pay bills) to irresistible levels, and/or disguises an ordinary shopping addiction ("I won't actually buy." "That's what you told yourself the last 10 times." "But THIS time..."). -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Mar 21 20:11:11 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:11:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <018f01d183ad$d0fa23d0$72ee6b70$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Will Steinberg Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 9:06 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] bees again On Mar 21, 2016 11:38 AM, "Adrian Tymes" > wrote: > > On Mar 20, 2016 12:01 PM, "Will Steinberg" > wrote: > > I think it's finally time to change the name of this list, to "Bees Institute". > >>? Don't be a buzzkill. I beelieve other topics are still discussed. For example, how far are we from radiotelepathy (not just speech via radio, but sharing sensory impressions and mental pictures), and would that make us more of a hive mind? > >?Buzzkill? That stings, Adrian. Uh oh, oh dear. One of the infamous ExI punfests is rumbling. Soon it may pour forth like angry swarm of savage wordplays. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 20:30:17 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:30:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 12:39 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > General question about addiction: just what constitutes addiction? I think it's very > fuzzy. If one bases it on the appearance of withdrawal symptoms of a physical > sort, then I am an addict, as I have been taking Tramadol for decades for my back > pain. When I started adding some decaf to my regular coffee beans I noticed > some withdrawal. Ditto when I quit alcohol and tobacco. I must be some sort > of poster boy for those who get addicted and then get unaddicted. Quitting > tobacco was by far the worst, followed by the time I ran short of Tramadol and > could not get any more fore several days. I was told when I started that one that > it was not addicting! Talk about needing more study of a drug......Curiously I had > no withdrawal from quitting alcohol, despite drinking a fifth of vodka a day. Felt > better immediately. > > I might accept gambling as an addiction but not sex or shopping. It can't just be > something that one overdoes. It has hurt one's life in some way. You can't just > miss it if you don't have it. I might have to start planting on my roof if I want any > more roses, as I have 120 now and no more room. Will I have withdrawal? Stay > tuned and see. My guess is that addiction is, for the most part, a category of disapproval being used as if it were something other than that. People will joke around and talk about, say, oxygen addiction or a water addiction, but the way addiction is almost always deployed is in terms of some behavior that either totally disapproved of someone or that's disapproved of when it overreaches some limit according to that person. By the way, IIRC, Stanton Peale made a distinction between addictive things/actions and addictive people. This is kind of tangential to my above point, though it could be taken to mean that some people are much more likely to meet with social disapproval, though the form their behaviors take may vary. (I believe that Peale was arguing that if, say, the heroin addict -- as defined by conventional standards -- were not addicted to heroin, they would find something else to be addicted -- as defined by the conventional standard -- provided the opportunity presented itself. In other words, some people are just more prone to get addicted overall -- and meaning others are generally not so prone. This goes along with the old saying that the sheep will find the butcher.) By the way, this is not to belittle folks struggling with behaviors they actually want to change. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 20:34:18 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 13:34:18 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: <018f01d183ad$d0fa23d0$72ee6b70$@att.net> References: <018f01d183ad$d0fa23d0$72ee6b70$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:11 PM, spike wrote: > Uh oh, oh dear. One of the infamous ExI punfests is rumbling. > Soon it may pour forth like angry swarm of savage wordplays. That might lead to a colony collapse! :) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 21:09:10 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:09:10 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: <018f01d183ad$d0fa23d0$72ee6b70$@att.net> Message-ID: This is completely apollen. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 21:15:03 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:15:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 21, 2016 1:31 PM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: > I believe that Peale was arguing that if, say, the heroin addict -- as defined by conventional standards -- were not addicted to heroin, they would find something else to be addicted -- as defined by the conventional standard -- provided the opportunity presented itself. In other words, some people are just more prone to get addicted overall -- and meaning others are generally not so prone. As someone with a family history of addiction, it does look to me that some people - such as myself - are more likely than others to get addicted. The trick is in choosing what you get addicted to, preferably early on: adolescence if not earlier, while the addictions that can stay with you for life (or take a lot more effort to change later) are still forming. The tobacco industry knows this quite well. I could have been an alcoholic, or a chain smoker...or far worse in terms of harm to other people, just for the thrill of seeing what I did help shape the world to a degree others acknowledged. I chose instead to addict myself to video games, storytelling, solving problems, and other neutral or positive things, though it can be harder to drive one's addictions toward not-immediately-rewarding tasks. (I still take some pleasure in the results my small contribution to cybernetics has had. And then there's what I do for my current startup; there is a blurry line between "addicted to work" and "focused on work".) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 21:32:40 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 16:32:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: <018f01d183ad$d0fa23d0$72ee6b70$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 4:09 PM, Will Steinberg wrote: > This is completely apollen. > ?I hive no opinion on it, for once, though I am tempted to insert a pun > about building (re mason bees, which no one will get). 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 atymes at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 21:47:48 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 14:47:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: <018f01d183ad$d0fa23d0$72ee6b70$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 21, 2016 1:35 PM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: > On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:11 PM, spike wrote: > > Uh oh, oh dear. One of the infamous ExI punfests is rumbling. > > Soon it may pour forth like angry swarm of savage wordplays. > > That might lead to a colony collapse! :) Ironically, just yesterday I was writing a story - a guest strip for a Web comic I follow - about discussions about a storm transforming into a hurricane of puns. I'd bounced the larval stage of the script off the author; he told me to soldier on and finish it, so I set some music droning to get my creative juices waxing. I bounced the result by some friends who also follow the comic, and they thought it was the bee's knees. Hopefully the comic's author won't find it abdomenable. (True story, though if anyone wants details to verify, please contact offlist. I'd rather not try posting attachments and set the moderators abuzz.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 22:11:06 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:11:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?> >>> ?>>? >>> ? >>> Lawyers cannot win cases with no supporting data. >> >> >> ?>> ? >> ?OJ >> > > ?> ? > ?I think it was the prosecutor that had no supporting data. > ?If the OJ prosecutor had insufficient data for a conviction then no prosecutor has ever had sufficient data ?data for a conviction because that was about as good as it gets. John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 22:26:40 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:26:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Your vote doesn't count? In-Reply-To: <8CC6EA17-382F-42E5-B99F-8A2D068AB3BC@gmail.com> References: <8CC6EA17-382F-42E5-B99F-8A2D068AB3BC@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mar 21, 2016 8:56 AM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: > http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/your-vote-doesnt-count > > I've never seem anyone brandish the "voting is fun" argument. He ignores the herd argument. While you can't change the behavior of everyone else directly, it's like a large game of Prisoner's Dillema: we are collectively better off the more of us engage in the voting process (including getting informed about the issues), even if individually we might gain a slight immediate benefit (saving a small amount of time) by not voting. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Mar 21 22:49:37 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 15:49:37 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <026e01d183c3$f3155d20$d9401760$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes >>? Buzzkill? That stings, Adrian. >?Sorry, didn't mean it in the beelittling sense. It's just that this is a honey of a list. Well there is that. We have been known to wax eloquent. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Mon Mar 21 23:41:02 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:41:02 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: <026e01d183c3$f3155d20$d9401760$@att.net> References: <026e01d183c3$f3155d20$d9401760$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:49 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *Adrian Tymes > > > >>? Buzzkill? That stings, Adrian. > > >?Sorry, didn't mean it in the beelittling sense. It's just that this is > a honey of a list. > > > > > > Well there is that. We have been known to wax eloquent. > > spike > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat I'd honestly like to beekeeping the puns going, but I have to go take Apis. Sorry everyone. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Mar 21 23:45:56 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 16:45:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: <018f01d183ad$d0fa23d0$72ee6b70$@att.net> Message-ID: <02b701d183cb$d0c2c480$72484d80$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 1:34 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] bees again On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 1:11 PM, spike > wrote: > Uh oh, oh dear. One of the infamous ExI punfests is rumbling. > Soon it may pour forth like angry swarm of savage wordplays. >?That might lead to a colony collapse! :) Regards, Dan I am varroa worried that it mite. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Mar 21 23:52:20 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 16:52:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bees again In-Reply-To: References: <018f01d183ad$d0fa23d0$72ee6b70$@att.net> Message-ID: <02bc01d183cc$b5b0b980$21122c80$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Will Steinberg Sent: Monday, March 21, 2016 2:09 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] bees again >?This is completely apollen? Ja well there is no need to brood over it. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 00:21:20 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 19:21:20 -0500 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 4:15 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Mar 21, 2016 1:31 PM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: > > I believe that Peale was arguing that if, say, the heroin addict -- as > defined by conventional standards -- were not addicted to heroin, they > would find something else to be addicted -- as defined by the conventional > standard -- provided the opportunity presented itself. In other words, some > people are just more prone to get addicted overall -- and meaning others > are generally not so prone. > > As someone with a family history of addiction, it does look to me that > some people - such as myself - are more likely than others to get addicted. > > The trick is in choosing what you get addicted to, preferably early on: > adolescence if not earlier, while the addictions that can stay with you for > life (or take a lot more effort to change later) are still forming. The > tobacco industry knows this quite well. > > I could have been an alcoholic, or a chain smoker...or far worse in terms > of harm to other people, just for the thrill of seeing what I did help > shape the world to a degree others acknowledged. I chose instead to addict > myself to video games, storytelling, solving problems, and other neutral or > positive things, though it can be harder to drive one's addictions toward > not-immediately-rewarding tasks. (I still take some pleasure in the > results my small contribution to cybernetics has had. And then there's > what I do for my current startup; there is a blurry line between "addicted > to work" and "focused on work".) > ?I do not agree. Look at what you are doing: trading puns, sharing ideas > when you could be working. Addicted to work means driving away your > family, your friends with sheer inattention and/or inability to talk about > anything else. If addiction has a place in the diagnostic manual of mental > disorders it has to be something that seriously needs treatment. No need > for treatment? No need for diagnosis. ? > ?I read for several hours a day. Am I addicted? Well, if I could keep only one thing it would be the ability to read books. If I had no access to books I go nuts. If I were in solitary confinement I could stand it if I had books (not allowed, likely). There really is no fuzzy line with addiction. It's a serious problem or it's just something you do a lot. And like OCD, it has a driven quality to it. "I just can't leave work until I finish this...." and then it's 3 a.m. ? ?It's the sort of thing ancients blamed on demon possession because it appeared as if the person were just taken over by something which forced them to do whatever. 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 00:59:06 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 17:59:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Your vote doesn't count? In-Reply-To: References: <8CC6EA17-382F-42E5-B99F-8A2D068AB3BC@gmail.com> Message-ID: <85AB73C6-B9A8-405C-B410-F157E9EEDA0F@gmail.com> > On Mar 21, 2016, at 3:26 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > On Mar 21, 2016 8:56 AM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: > > http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/your-vote-doesnt-count > > > > I've never seem anyone brandish the "voting is fun" argument. > > He ignores the herd argument. > I always presumed Katherine was a she. Am I wrong? http://reason.com/people/katherine-mangu-ward/all > While you can't change the behavior of everyone else directly, it's like a large game of Prisoner's Dillema: we are collectively better off the more of us engage in the voting process (including getting informed about the issues), even if individually we might gain a slight immediate benefit (saving a small amount of time) by not voting. > She's not really arguing so much about a small immediate benefit, but against the belief that there's any benefit to voting -- at least according to the typical arguments arrayed against not voting. A prisoner's dilemma argument might work if your not voting had much of an impact. It likely has no impact. And by likely, she quantifies this to a one in sixty million chance. She also raises the issue that getting more people to vote -- in the 'Rock the Vote' section -- will only make each vote count even less as well as getting ever more incompetent people to vote. (By incompetence is meant folks who really will make the outcomes much worse because their public policy beliefs are far less informed and reasonable.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 01:32:41 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:32:41 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Your vote doesn't count? In-Reply-To: <85AB73C6-B9A8-405C-B410-F157E9EEDA0F@gmail.com> References: <8CC6EA17-382F-42E5-B99F-8A2D068AB3BC@gmail.com> <85AB73C6-B9A8-405C-B410-F157E9EEDA0F@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 5:59 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Mar 21, 2016, at 3:26 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > On Mar 21, 2016 8:56 AM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: > > http://reason.com/archives/2012/10/03/your-vote-doesnt-count > > > > I've never seem anyone brandish the "voting is fun" argument. > > He ignores the herd argument. > > > I always presumed Katherine was a she. Am I wrong? > You're right. I didn't see the byline. > She's not really arguing so much about a small immediate benefit, but > against the belief that there's any benefit to voting -- at least according > to the typical arguments arrayed against not voting. > > A prisoner's dilemma argument might work if your not voting had much of an > impact. It likely has no impact. And by likely, she quantifies this to a > one in sixty million chance. > "Extremely small" is not "zero". We're talking about large numbers of people here; that's why I said "herd", as in "herd immunity" for vaccines. It's okay if 1 or 100 people don't get vaccinated out of 1 million, but it's not okay if 100,000 don't, and no one is the one person who pushed it over the edge. Thus in this case: okay, you'll have an extremely small impact. That doesn't mean it's the same as no impact. You can't change the behavior of all those other voters but you can change your own - and know that a number of people will think like you, coming to the same conclusions as you based on the same data. (When was the last time, in any county-wide-or-higher election, where you voted and yours was literally the only vote for a certain candidate or for/against a certain measure?) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 01:52:30 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 21 Mar 2016 18:52:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Your vote doesn't count? In-Reply-To: References: <8CC6EA17-382F-42E5-B99F-8A2D068AB3BC@gmail.com> <85AB73C6-B9A8-405C-B410-F157E9EEDA0F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <7541D6F5-18B6-41F9-AA86-A0ACB14B0610@gmail.com> On Mar 21, 2016, at 6:32 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> She's not really arguing so much about a small immediate benefit, but against the belief that there's any benefit to voting -- at least according to the typical arguments arrayed against not voting. >> >> A prisoner's dilemma argument might work if your not voting had much of an impact. It likely has no impact. And by likely, she quantifies this to a one in sixty million chance. > > "Extremely small" is not "zero". We're talking about large numbers of people here; that's why I said "herd", as in "herd immunity" for vaccines. It's okay if 1 or 100 people don't get vaccinated out of 1 million, but it's not okay if 100,000 don't, and no one is the one person who pushed it over the edge. > > Thus in this case: okay, you'll have an extremely small impact. That doesn't mean it's the same as no impact. You can't change the behavior of all those other voters but you can change your own - and know that a number of people will think like you, coming to the same conclusions as you based on the same data. (When was the last time, in any county-wide-or-higher election, where you voted and yours was literally the only vote for a certain candidate or for/against a certain measure?) Katherine Mangu-Ward dealt with your first concern under the section titled 'What If Everybody Stopped Voting?' She also mentioned the numbers in an earlier section, the 'Every Vote Counts' one. On how often anyone's vote counts, my guess is very very rarely. Her numbers were for the state legislature mattering less than ten times over a century long period. For county level, I imagine there might be more times -- maybe an order of magnitude higher on average... Given county voting sizes, you might have more of an impact there. However, she's not taking s strong stance against voting when your vote might count. Her point is rather that this will be a very rare occurrence. Also, she mentions that voting is not the only or even the most effective way to influence public policy. You probably have orders more magnitude influence of you do things like letter write (an example she uses) and do other forms of activism. (And not all forms of activism are boiled down to influencing how people their vote.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Tue Mar 22 10:19:21 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:19:21 +0000 Subject: [ExI] addiction In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56F11C29.1040804@aleph.se> On 2016-03-21 19:39, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > General question about addiction: just what constitutes addiction? The modern psychological definition would stress that it is a behavior that limits your ability to live your life in your society. Just taking a substance or even being dependent on it is not enough. Typically, it is list based. If you do the drug or behavior more than indented, you want to cut down on it but are unable to do it, you spend a lot of time getting it, repeatedly are unable to carry out major obligations at work, school or home due to it, it causes social or interpersonal problems but you continue to use it, you stop or reduce important social, occupational or recreational activities due to the use, or you use it when it is risky - then you may have a disorder. If only 2-3 of these criteria are fulfilled, then it might be a mild case. 4-5: moderate, and more than 6 severe. That is the psychiatrist approach. From a neurobehavioral perspective it is all about a persistent behavior pattern that becomes maladaptively dominant, typically because of messing with the reward system. The problem is not the enjoyment of gambling, books or meth, but if it crowds out too much of the rest of life, long-term life goals, and functioning in society. Most common addiction talk use it as a metaphor. But it is loose talk, not necessarily talking about the important thing at the core of the discussion here. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 13:11:26 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:11:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bees again Message-ID: Did you know that bees spend most of their time wondering? HHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?? bill w (note double pun) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 15:33:18 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:33:18 -0500 Subject: [ExI] paradox? Message-ID: Y'all like puzzles, Spike says, so here is one I have been wondering about: In the winter we set the thermostat during the day at 71 and that's about our feel good temperature. 72 feels just a bit high and 70 a bit low. I am a bit surprised that we can tell the temp of just a degree or two. Night setting is 68. No change is made according to outside temp. There is a factor that is probably irrelevant: persistence of cold. When we come in from the cold our feeling of coldness lasts much longer than it takes to warm our skin. Not understood. There is no persistence of warmth. In the summer we set it at 76. Any lower is too cold (the winter night setting of 68 feels frigid in the summer), and higher is too hot. Now why should our preferred temp be so different according to the seasons? It would seem that it should be the same regardless of what the temp is outside. Note that I am assuming that the humidity in the house is about the same winter and summer. Now if we compare: if we wanted the temp to be the greatest difference between the house and outside, we'd set it at 76 in the winter and 71 in the summer. If we wanted the difference to be the smallest, we'd set it just like we do now. But maybe the difference is not a controlling factor here. However, I don't know what is. Any of you notice the difference in settings between summer and winter, and if, so, is it like ours or different? ??? bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 15:48:31 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:48:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] paradox? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 22, 2016 11:34 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: > > Y'all like puzzles, Spike says, so here is one I have been wondering about: > > In the winter we set the thermostat during the day at 71 and that's about our feel good temperature. 72 feels just a bit high and 70 a bit low. I am a bit surprised that we can tell the temp of just a degree or two. Night setting is 68. > > No change is made according to outside temp. There is a factor that is probably irrelevant: persistence of cold. When we come in from the cold our feeling of coldness lasts much longer than it takes to warm our skin. Not understood. There is no persistence of warmth. > > In the summer we set it at 76. Any lower is too cold (the winter night setting of 68 feels frigid in the summer), and higher is too hot. > > Now why should our preferred temp be so different according to the seasons? It would seem that it should be the same regardless of what the temp is outside. > > Note that I am assuming that the humidity in the house is about the same winter and summer. > > Now if we compare: if we wanted the temp to be the greatest difference between the house and outside, we'd set it at 76 in the winter and 71 in the summer. > > If we wanted the difference to be the smallest, we'd set it just like we do now. But maybe the difference is not a controlling factor here. > > However, I don't know what is. Any of you notice the difference in settings between summer and winter, and if, so, is it like ours or different? > > ??? > > bill w > I'd harbor a guess that in higher temperatures than "normal" (maybe the thermodynamic equilibrium of skin? Or actually, let's start at birth. When you're born and begin to be raised in an environment of a certain temperature, some process dictates the recruitment of a certain 2D molarity (molecules/m^2) of thermoreceptors to your skin cells to create thermodynamic equilibrium in your skin. That's "normal" for now)--so at higher temperatures than normal, more receptors get recruited to skin cells, and your temperature tolerance goes up briefly. Chronic activation therein causes longer term upregulation. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 15:51:02 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:51:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] paradox? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Will Steinberg wrote: > > On Mar 22, 2016 11:34 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" > wrote: > > > > Y'all like puzzles, Spike says, so here is one I have been wondering > about: > > > > In the winter we set the thermostat during the day at 71 and that's > about our feel good temperature. 72 feels just a bit high and 70 a bit > low. I am a bit surprised that we can tell the temp of just a degree or > two. Night setting is 68. > > > > No change is made according to outside temp. There is a factor that is > probably irrelevant: persistence of cold. When we come in from the cold > our feeling of coldness lasts much longer than it takes to warm our skin. > Not understood. There is no persistence of warmth. > > > > In the summer we set it at 76. Any lower is too cold (the winter night > setting of 68 feels frigid in the summer), and higher is too hot. > > > > Now why should our preferred temp be so different according to the > seasons? It would seem that it should be the same regardless of what the > temp is outside. > > > > Note that I am assuming that the humidity in the house is about the same > winter and summer. > > > > Now if we compare: if we wanted the temp to be the greatest difference > between the house and outside, we'd set it at 76 in the winter and 71 in > the summer. > > > > If we wanted the difference to be the smallest, we'd set it just like we > do now. But maybe the difference is not a controlling factor here. > > > > However, I don't know what is. Any of you notice the difference in > settings between summer and winter, and if, so, is it like ours or > different? > > > > ??? > > > > bill w > > > > I'd harbor a guess that in higher temperatures than "normal" (maybe the > thermodynamic equilibrium of skin? Or actually, let's start at birth. > When you're born and begin to be raised in an environment of a certain > temperature, some process dictates the recruitment of a certain 2D molarity > (molecules/m^2) of thermoreceptors to your skin cells to create > thermodynamic equilibrium in your skin. That's "normal" for now)--so at > higher temperatures than normal, more receptors get recruited to skin > cells, and your temperature tolerance goes up briefly. Chronic activation > therein causes longer term upregulation. > ?Thanks, but would you put that in English, please? 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 pharos at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 15:55:54 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:55:54 +0000 Subject: [ExI] paradox? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 22 March 2016 at 15:33, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Y'all like puzzles, Spike says, so here is one I have been wondering about: > > In the winter we set the thermostat during the day at 71 and that's about > our feel good temperature. 72 feels just a bit high and 70 a bit low. I am > a bit surprised that we can tell the temp of just a degree or two. Night > setting is 68. > > In the summer we set it at 76. Any lower is too cold (the winter night > setting of 68 feels frigid in the summer), and higher is too hot. > > Now why should our preferred temp be so different according to the seasons? > It would seem that it should be the same regardless of what the temp is > outside. > Because you wear different clothes in winter and summer? In winter, maybe a vest or thin sweater that you don't wear in summer? Maybe just shorts and T-shirt in summer? BillK From steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 16:03:23 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:03:23 -0400 Subject: [ExI] paradox? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If you take heroin every day, your body puts more opioid receptors on the cells, because then it takes more heroin to activate the same amount of receptors--your body thinks those are opioids made within itself, and thinks it needs to normalize the response in order to maintain homeostasis (body balance). In the same way, if your body senses a chronic temperature shift, it probably does the same thing with heat receptors. Your body is trying to have the same internal response to a changing external environment. So in the summer, the temperature at which your body begins to heat up the skin rises--because the environment is doing that heating for you, basically. On Mar 22, 2016 11:52 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 10:48 AM, Will Steinberg > wrote: > >> >> On Mar 22, 2016 11:34 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" >> wrote: >> > >> > Y'all like puzzles, Spike says, so here is one I have been wondering >> about: >> > >> > In the winter we set the thermostat during the day at 71 and that's >> about our feel good temperature. 72 feels just a bit high and 70 a bit >> low. I am a bit surprised that we can tell the temp of just a degree or >> two. Night setting is 68. >> > >> > No change is made according to outside temp. There is a factor that is >> probably irrelevant: persistence of cold. When we come in from the cold >> our feeling of coldness lasts much longer than it takes to warm our skin. >> Not understood. There is no persistence of warmth. >> > >> > In the summer we set it at 76. Any lower is too cold (the winter night >> setting of 68 feels frigid in the summer), and higher is too hot. >> > >> > Now why should our preferred temp be so different according to the >> seasons? It would seem that it should be the same regardless of what the >> temp is outside. >> > >> > Note that I am assuming that the humidity in the house is about the >> same winter and summer. >> > >> > Now if we compare: if we wanted the temp to be the greatest difference >> between the house and outside, we'd set it at 76 in the winter and 71 in >> the summer. >> > >> > If we wanted the difference to be the smallest, we'd set it just like >> we do now. But maybe the difference is not a controlling factor here. >> > >> > However, I don't know what is. Any of you notice the difference in >> settings between summer and winter, and if, so, is it like ours or >> different? >> > >> > ??? >> > >> > bill w >> > >> >> I'd harbor a guess that in higher temperatures than "normal" (maybe the >> thermodynamic equilibrium of skin? Or actually, let's start at birth. >> When you're born and begin to be raised in an environment of a certain >> temperature, some process dictates the recruitment of a certain 2D molarity >> (molecules/m^2) of thermoreceptors to your skin cells to create >> thermodynamic equilibrium in your skin. That's "normal" for now)--so at >> higher temperatures than normal, more receptors get recruited to skin >> cells, and your temperature tolerance goes up briefly. Chronic activation >> therein causes longer term upregulation. >> ?Thanks, but would you put that in English, please? 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 steinberg.will at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 16:05:57 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 12:05:57 -0400 Subject: [ExI] paradox? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 22, 2016 11:57 AM, "BillK" wrote: > > Because you wear different clothes in winter and summer? > In winter, maybe a vest or thin sweater that you don't wear in summer? > Maybe just shorts and T-shirt in summer? > >BillK It's not clothes; the answer is homeostasis. Just like the addiction thread. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Tue Mar 22 15:51:54 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 08:51:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] nature videos, was: RE: bees again Message-ID: <00ad01d18452$c2b01780$48104680$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 6:11 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] bees again Did you know that bees spend most of their time wondering? HHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM?? bill w (note double pun) Harrrrrarararaarararrrrrr? Here?s a cool excellent video by the Beeb. I include it not for the content, which isn?t transhumanist, but rather as an example of the advances in video equipment that allow us to make this kind of thing. About 30 seconds of it will give you a pretty good idea of the tech: https://aeon.co/videos/are-the-kung-fu-skills-of-a-newborn-orchid-mantis-a-match-for-a-jumping-spider?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter &utm_campaign=fec6fd14ae-Daily_Newsletter_22_March_20163_21_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-fec6fd14ae-68957125 I want to learn what equipment is needed to make video of this quality, but have no clue on how to Google that without getting just a bunch of ads and misleading sales lit. Perhaps there is an internet group for those who want to make cm-scale nature videos. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 16:18:24 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 16:18:24 +0000 Subject: [ExI] nature videos, was: RE: bees again In-Reply-To: <00ad01d18452$c2b01780$48104680$@att.net> References: <00ad01d18452$c2b01780$48104680$@att.net> Message-ID: On 22 March 2016 at 15:51, spike wrote: > Here?s a cool excellent video by the Beeb. I include it not for the > content, which isn?t transhumanist, but rather as an example of the advances > in video equipment that allow us to make this kind of thing. About 30 > seconds of it will give you a pretty good idea of the tech: > > I want to learn what equipment is needed to make video of this quality, but > have no clue on how to Google that without getting just a bunch of ads and > misleading sales lit. Perhaps there is an internet group for those who want > to make cm-scale nature videos. > I remembered that when watching this TV series that they often explained at the end of an episode how they did the filming. The BBC has the explanations here: That may give you the info you want. BillK From anders at aleph.se Tue Mar 22 17:15:00 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 17:15:00 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Radio talk on life extension/cosmism Message-ID: <56F17D94.7070703@aleph.se> A bit of shameless self promotion. Me on BBC3 talking about eternity, the universe, life extension and growing up as a species: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0745dyd Text of the essay: http://aleph.se/papers/SeekingEternityFinal.pdf I liked the chance to do an Easter talk/essay on our kind of topics. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From spike66 at att.net Tue Mar 22 17:21:29 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 10:21:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] paradox? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <016901d1845f$468e1050$d3aa30f0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 8:33 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] paradox? In the winter we set the thermostat during the day at 71 and that's about our feel good temperature. 72 feels just a bit high and 70 a bit low. I am a bit surprised that we can tell the temp of just a degree or two. Night setting is 68?.No change is made according to outside temp. There is a factor that is probably irrelevant: persistence of cold. When we come in from the cold our feeling of coldness lasts much longer than it takes to warm our skin. Not understood. There is no persistence of warmth?If we wanted the difference to be the smallest, we'd set it just like we do now. But maybe the difference is not a controlling factor here?.However, I don't know what is. Any of you notice the difference in settings between summer and winter, and if, so, is it like ours or different????bill w BillW, this took me years to figure out, even though I had all the requisite formal training, with the math and all. The answer to your paradox is in that there is more to HVAC than the air temperature and humidity. Those are the ones we think about immediately, but if you try to create a mathematical model it turns out to be crazy complicated. Consider factors such as you wear more clothing in the winter. That one is difficult to equalize, but it is still more complicated. Your comfort is not only a factor of convection from the surrounding air, but also conduction into the furniture you touch and radiation from the walls. A room measured at 70F by your thermostat on a blustery winter day and the same room measured at 70F by your thermostat on a sultry Mississippi July afternoon. In that same room, the air is stirring in July because the AC is running full blast, so you get more evaporative cooling from the air. The furniture is colder in that room in January because it radiates heat into the cold walls. To show what I am saying, get one of those IR temperature devices. Set the room to 70F in January, measure the inside wall temp. Probably get about 60F. Repeat experiment in July, probably get about 80F. Your walls are radiating heat to your furniture and stuff you touch a lot more in July than in January. But wait, there?s more. It also depends on what kind of heat you have. Some go for reversible heat pumps. This warms the air, but it also stirs the air, so it doesn?t feel as good as a crackling fireplace, which radiates heat (aaah so comforting it is.) If you have ever been to a big jolly bonfire or at the scene of a house fire where something is burning really hot, you can feel that heat from waaaay far away: radiation. I have felt the heat from a forest fire from a quarter of a mile away. Imagine being inside a house where it is cold goddam hell outside. Your paradox is sorta the flip side of that coin: the wall temperature counts. If you are in a reeeeally cold place like Spokane, it counts a lot. Once I really put my head to this, it caused me to realize why I was always so cold in Spokane Washington at Christmas even though the thermostat read the same as mine at home: the walls were a lot colder there. I was radiating heat into them and getting very little back. Once you really start drilling way down on this paradox and doing the math, you realize why I concluded that an MBrain would need to reflect most of its energy in a low-entropy form (so it mostly isn?t used to do computation.) Otherwise the inboard nodes overheat. Alternative: they need to be waaaay out there. So by my calcs, an MBrain must either be huge or wasteful, and I fear both. I found that by wondering why it is so cold indoors in Spokane Washington, even when the thermostat is telling me I should be comfortable. Thanks for the reminder BillW. See what cool stuff you can discover by pondering HVAC paradoxes? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From gsantostasi at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 17:51:11 2016 From: gsantostasi at gmail.com (Giovanni Santostasi) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:51:11 -0400 Subject: [ExI] paradox? In-Reply-To: <016901d1845f$468e1050$d3aa30f0$@att.net> References: <016901d1845f$468e1050$d3aa30f0$@att.net> Message-ID: Here a wiki entry on the subject. One of the factors they mention is metabolism. It is obvious metabolism changes in summer vs winter. Our bodies are susceptible to circadian but also seasonal influences. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_comfort On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 1:21 PM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 22, 2016 8:33 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* [ExI] paradox? > > > > In the winter we set the thermostat during the day at 71 and that's about > our feel good temperature. 72 feels just a bit high and 70 a bit low. I > am a bit surprised that we can tell the temp of just a degree or two. > Night setting is 68?.No change is made according to outside temp. There > is a factor that is probably irrelevant: persistence of cold. When we > come in from the cold our feeling of coldness lasts much longer than it > takes to warm our skin. Not understood. There is no persistence of warmth > ?If we wanted the difference to be the smallest, we'd set it just like we > do now. But maybe the difference is not a controlling factor here?.However, > I don't know what is. Any of you notice the difference in settings between > summer and winter, and if, so, is it like ours or different????bill w > > > > > > BillW, this took me years to figure out, even though I had all the > requisite formal training, with the math and all. > > > > The answer to your paradox is in that there is more to HVAC than the air > temperature and humidity. Those are the ones we think about immediately, > but if you try to create a mathematical model it turns out to be crazy > complicated. Consider factors such as you wear more clothing in the > winter. That one is difficult to equalize, but it is still more > complicated. > > > > Your comfort is not only a factor of convection from the surrounding air, > but also conduction into the furniture you touch and radiation from the > walls. A room measured at 70F by your thermostat on a blustery winter day > and the same room measured at 70F by your thermostat on a sultry > Mississippi July afternoon. In that same room, the air is stirring in July > because the AC is running full blast, so you get more evaporative cooling > from the air. The furniture is colder in that room in January because it > radiates heat into the cold walls. > > > > To show what I am saying, get one of those IR temperature devices. Set > the room to 70F in January, measure the inside wall temp. Probably get > about 60F. Repeat experiment in July, probably get about 80F. Your walls > are radiating heat to your furniture and stuff you touch a lot more in July > than in January. > > > > But wait, there?s more. It also depends on what kind of heat you have. > Some go for reversible heat pumps. This warms the air, but it also stirs > the air, so it doesn?t feel as good as a crackling fireplace, which > radiates heat (aaah so comforting it is.) If you have ever been to a big > jolly bonfire or at the scene of a house fire where something is burning > really hot, you can feel that heat from waaaay far away: radiation. I have > felt the heat from a forest fire from a quarter of a mile away. Imagine > being inside a house where it is cold goddam hell outside. Your paradox is > sorta the flip side of that coin: the wall temperature counts. If you are > in a reeeeally cold place like Spokane, it counts a lot. > > > > Once I really put my head to this, it caused me to realize why I was > always so cold in Spokane Washington at Christmas even though the > thermostat read the same as mine at home: the walls were a lot colder > there. I was radiating heat into them and getting very little back. Once > you really start drilling way down on this paradox and doing the math, you > realize why I concluded that an MBrain would need to reflect most of its > energy in a low-entropy form (so it mostly isn?t used to do computation.) > Otherwise the inboard nodes overheat. Alternative: they need to be waaaay > out there. So by my calcs, an MBrain must either be huge or wasteful, and > I fear both. I found that by wondering why it is so cold indoors in > Spokane Washington, even when the thermostat is telling me I should be > comfortable. > > > > Thanks for the reminder BillW. See what cool stuff you can discover by > pondering HVAC paradoxes? > > > > 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 jasonresch at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 18:05:07 2016 From: jasonresch at gmail.com (Jason Resch) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 13:05:07 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Malaria conspiracy theory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: There's been a massive effort to distribute insecticide treated sleeping nets. It's considered one of the most cost effective ways to save lives: http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/insecticide-treated-nets Here is a graphic demonstrating the effect the effort has had: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/post/2015/12/bednets-have-prevented-450-million-cases-of-malaria/ Jason On Mon, Mar 21, 2016 at 6:56 AM, Will Steinberg wrote: > > What's the conspiracy, exactly? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mar 22 18:05:25 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:05:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] nature videos, was: RE: bees again In-Reply-To: References: <00ad01d18452$c2b01780$48104680$@att.net> Message-ID: <01ad01d18465$694ccfe0$3be66fa0$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK .... > >>... I want to learn what equipment is needed to make video of this > quality, but have no clue on how to Google that without getting just a > bunch of ads and misleading sales lit. Perhaps there is an internet > group for those who want to make cm-scale nature videos. > >...I remembered that when watching this TV series that they often explained at the end of an episode how they did the filming. The BBC has the explanations here: That may give you the info you want. BillK Cool! Thanks BillK. Here's the good stuff: http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/2MfpK0zsdBdpMGNqJh3gHFQ/how-we-made-it-weaver-ants-natural-architects We already know a lot about how meter-scale beasts behave, for we watch them nearly every day (I do.) But beasts on the cm scale are far harder to observe, so we have a loooootta lotta cool stuff to learn. For instance, we know how cat and dogs fight, ja? We have all seen that. Do you know how ants fight? Wouldn't that be cool to see that in super high-rez super slo-mo? For another instance: I have ants farming aphids in my back yard. The ant does something to the aphid, strokes it or something, the aphid barfs up a glob of nectar or something which the ant takes away. I take a fine hair that should act like an ant antenna, stroke that aphid the same way the ant did: no nectar. So how is that ant able to stroke the aphid to orgasm but I can't? I think if we had a bunch of these videos, we could learn a lot about bugs and how they behave. We could perhaps automate the process somehow, farm trillions of aphids rather than the ant's paltry farm with millions of them devouring my citrus trees, collect gallons of that nectar, use it to make nectar tea or some silly thing, market it as nature's own natural organic sweetner, make buttloads of money. spike From spike66 at att.net Tue Mar 22 18:19:29 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:19:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Malaria conspiracy theory In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01b501d18467$603ccbb0$20b66310$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Jason Resch Sent: Tuesday, March 22, 2016 11:05 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] Malaria conspiracy theory There's been a massive effort to distribute insecticide treated sleeping nets. It's considered one of the most cost effective ways to save lives: http://www.givewell.org/international/technical/programs/insecticide-treated-nets Here is a graphic demonstrating the effect the effort has had: https://www.givingwhatwecan.org/post/2015/12/bednets-have-prevented-450-million-cases-of-malaria/ Jason Excellent. I think is a great approach. If you distribute chemical sprays, some areas might use it, others might not, lots of factors at play, suspicion that the infidels are struggling to reduce fertility, that sort thing. But if you give away mosquito nets, they damn sure will use them. Anyone who has camped out and suffered mosquitoes all night know the locals will use mosquito nets if they have them. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 18:34:43 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 18:34:43 +0000 Subject: [ExI] paradox? In-Reply-To: References: <016901d1845f$468e1050$d3aa30f0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 22 March 2016 at 17:51, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > > Here a wiki entry on the subject. > One of the factors they mention is metabolism. > It is obvious metabolism changes in summer vs winter. > Our bodies are susceptible to circadian but also seasonal influences. > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_comfort > Air-conditioning in large open-plan offices is difficult. If you have ever worked in such buildings with people of mixed age and sex you soon realise that some people are shivering while others are complaining about the heat. I'm sure I read that some buildings fitted dummy thermostats on office walls that occupants could adjust. They made no difference to the air-conditioning, but people felt better. BillK From spike66 at att.net Tue Mar 22 18:48:50 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 11:48:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] paradox? In-Reply-To: References: <016901d1845f$468e1050$d3aa30f0$@att.net> Message-ID: <01f201d1846b$7a126cd0$6e374670$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] paradox? On 22 March 2016 at 17:51, Giovanni Santostasi wrote: > >> Here a wiki entry on the subject. > One of the factors they mention is metabolism.... > > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermal_comfort > >...Air-conditioning in large open-plan offices is difficult. If you have ever worked in such buildings with people of mixed age and sex you soon realise that some people are shivering while others are complaining about the heat...BillK Last week my bride started having hormonal hot flashes. So I asked, What if... she is reading an eerie Steven-King-ish chilling, shivers-up-the-spine novel and has a hot flash at the same time? Which would win? Would it turn into a tepid flash? I dropped that line of inquiry, for she was not amused. Just a curious man trying to do science, sheesh. spike From pharos at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 19:32:49 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 19:32:49 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Next step In Robot trucks now available Message-ID: Daimler outlines vision for the future of vehicle connectivity, announces platooning system Jeff Crissey March 21, 2016 Quotes: In an on-highway demonstration on the Autobahn on the outskirts of town, Daimler showcased its new capabilities with a platoon of three Highway Pilot Connect-equipped Mercedes Actros trucks. In the demonstration, the following distance is reduced from 50 meters to 15 meters when the three trucks link into a single platoon, which Daimler says can decrease emissions and improve the combined fuel efficiency of the three vehicles by as much as 7 percent (2 percent improvement for the lead truck, 11 percent for the second truck and 9 percent for the third truck). When a Mercedes passenger car entered the gap between the second and third truck, the Highway Pilot Connect automatically increased the following distance of the third truck to 50 meters until the car exited the lane, after which the system automatically closed the gap back to 15 meters. ---------- Automated trucks may be arriving quicker than expected! BillK From pharos at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 20:14:43 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:14:43 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Radio talk on life extension/cosmism In-Reply-To: <56F17D94.7070703@aleph.se> References: <56F17D94.7070703@aleph.se> Message-ID: On 22 March 2016 at 17:15, Anders Sandberg wrote: > A bit of shameless self promotion. > > Me on BBC3 talking about eternity, the universe, life extension and growing > up as a species: > http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0745dyd > > Text of the essay: > http://aleph.se/papers/SeekingEternityFinal.pdf > Sort of linked....... :) Quote: the known universe is about 93 billion light years in diameter. As large as that is, it?s only the portion of the Universe we can observe. The total Universe extends beyond our horizon. Just how far it goes is an interesting question. There are indications that the Universe extends far beyond what we can observe. the short answer for the size of the Universe is that it?s huge. Likely very, very, very huge. Possibly infinite. -------- BillK From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Mar 22 22:50:09 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 15:50:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Jupiter prevented super-earth formation? Message-ID: <67CA5070-8D15-4D07-BD69-35CEED55CA4F@gmail.com> http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/why-does-earth-have-no-super-earth-cousins/ There's also more recent work by Raymond on this that's making the news now. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Tue Mar 22 23:51:15 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2016 23:51:15 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Jupiter prevented super-earth formation? In-Reply-To: <67CA5070-8D15-4D07-BD69-35CEED55CA4F@gmail.com> References: <67CA5070-8D15-4D07-BD69-35CEED55CA4F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <56F1DA73.8070608@aleph.se> Some interesting models at http://www.astro.lu.se/lundexoplanets2015/slides/Sean_Raymond.pdf I am trying to make a proper system for generating realistic solar systems for a roleplaying game, and the wild days of exoplanet and system modelling right now makes it hard to decide on what to use. On 2016-03-22 22:50, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > http://www.astrobio.net/news-exclusive/why-does-earth-have-no-super-earth-cousins/ > > There's also more recent work by Raymond on this that's making the > news now. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books via: > http://author.to/DanUst > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Mar 23 08:09:30 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 01:09:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Jupiter prevented super-earth formation? In-Reply-To: <56F1DA73.8070608@aleph.se> References: <67CA5070-8D15-4D07-BD69-35CEED55CA4F@gmail.com> <56F1DA73.8070608@aleph.se> Message-ID: <8C5A29F9-59BC-4BFB-9434-01B40BB9C5E2@gmail.com> On Mar 22, 2016, at 4:51 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > Some interesting models at > http://www.astro.lu.se/lundexoplanets2015/slides/Sean_Raymond.pdf Thanks! > I am trying to make a proper system for generating realistic solar systems for a roleplaying game, and the wild days of exoplanet and system modelling right now makes it hard to decide on what to use. I thought the Nice model was clearing things up, but apparently it's still, as you say, the wild days. Of course, it's fun to see all the theorizing and speculating going on. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Mar 23 08:11:04 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 01:11:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Radio talk on life extension/cosmism In-Reply-To: References: <56F17D94.7070703@aleph.se> Message-ID: <771D2C8E-0868-43C1-AD84-874D0C552DDC@gmail.com> On Mar 22, 2016, at 1:14 PM, BillK wrote: > Sort of linked....... :) > > > > Quote: > the known universe is about 93 billion light years in diameter. As > large as that is, it?s only the portion of the Universe we can > observe. The total Universe extends beyond our horizon. Just how far > it goes is an interesting question. > > There are indications that the Universe extends far beyond what we can observe. > > the short answer for the size of the Universe is that it?s huge. > Likely very, very, very huge. Possibly infinite. I still default to infinite. ;) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Wed Mar 23 09:22:11 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 09:22:11 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Radio talk on life extension/cosmism In-Reply-To: <771D2C8E-0868-43C1-AD84-874D0C552DDC@gmail.com> References: <56F17D94.7070703@aleph.se> <771D2C8E-0868-43C1-AD84-874D0C552DDC@gmail.com> Message-ID: <56F26043.4030900@aleph.se> Actually, while the universe as a whole may be limitless, we are actually likely stuck in a finite patch. The reason is the accelerating expansion. Even if we spread at light speed we could only reach 15 billion light years away ("the affectable universe" in Toby Ord's terminology). That is still 6.5 billion galaxies and much larger than the 300 million lightyears "end of greatness" homogenity scale (Laniakea is just 260 million and the Virgo cluster just 7 million lightyears). The 46 billion lightyear radius of the currently observable universe is expanding with time, and will eventually reach 62 billion lightyears. But that is relative to Earth: were we to expand across the affectable universe we would add 15 billion lightyears in all directions - things that can be seen by the colonies, even though the information can never reach Earth. Note that if you want to exchange an infinite number of signals from the frontier to your core you will be stuck in a gravitationally bound supercluster, a few million lightyears across. So our future universe may be unbounded in time, but not in space. (A lot of these measures need defining in a bit more detail, since we are dealing with expanding coordinate systems; I have used co-moving spatial coordinates here, since they are the most reasonable when you care about the material stuff inside the universe.) On 2016-03-23 08:11, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Mar 22, 2016, at 1:14 PM, BillK > wrote: > Sort of linked....... :) >> >> >> >> Quote: >> the known universe is about 93 billion light years in diameter. As >> large as that is, it?s only the portion of the Universe we can >> observe. The total Universe extends beyond our horizon. Just how far >> it goes is an interesting question. >> >> There are indications that the Universe extends far beyond what we >> can observe. >> >> the short answer for the size of the Universe is that it?s huge. >> Likely very, very, very huge. Possibly infinite. > > I still default to infinite. ;) > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books via: > http://author.to/DanUst > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Mar 23 16:33:44 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:33:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quote for the day Message-ID: "The unfair advantage of philosophers is that they are not obliged to believe anything." Robertson Davies bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Wed Mar 23 23:03:44 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 23:03:44 +0000 Subject: [ExI] quote for the day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56F320D0.60808@aleph.se> On 2016-03-23 16:33, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > "The unfair advantage of philosophers is that they are not obliged to > believe anything." Robertson Davies Yup. It really helps. Also overheard today: "Bitcoin isn't run by the Mafia. The Mafia runs the 500 euro bills. Bitcoin is run by the Chinese." (I was at a future of finance conference, with a fun mix of conventional finance people and blockchain people. Robin presented upload economics). -- 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 Wed Mar 23 23:08:34 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 16:08:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote for the day In-Reply-To: <56F320D0.60808@aleph.se> References: <56F320D0.60808@aleph.se> Message-ID: <01e001d18558$ed76d7e0$c86487a0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 4:04 PM To: extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org Subject: Re: [ExI] quote for the day On 2016-03-23 16:33, William Flynn Wallace wrote: "The unfair advantage of philosophers is that they are not obliged to believe anything." Robertson Davies Yup. It really helps. Also overheard today: "Bitcoin isn't run by the Mafia. The Mafia runs the 500 euro bills. Bitcoin is run by the Chinese." . -- Dr Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University Bitcoin hipsters please: while I was camping, I heard a Hollywood hospital was hacked and its files held for ransom. It paid a fraction of the demand, but did it in bitcoin. Is this true? If so, does not bitcoin enable kidnapping? And would not it create special opportunity targets of the families of people known to hold bitcoins? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu Wed Mar 23 23:57:29 2016 From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 19:57:29 -0400 Subject: [ExI] quote for the day In-Reply-To: <01e001d18558$ed76d7e0$c86487a0$@att.net> References: <56F320D0.60808@aleph.se> <01e001d18558$ed76d7e0$c86487a0$@att.net> Message-ID: <1073D7FC-F2CE-4806-B7B7-E4AC64ADB74C@alumni.virginia.edu> On Mar 23, 2016, at 7:08 PM, spike wrote: > Bitcoin hipsters please: while I was camping, I heard a Hollywood hospital was hacked and its files held for ransom. It paid a fraction of the demand, but did it in bitcoin. Is this true? If so, does not bitcoin enable kidnapping? And would not it create special opportunity targets of the families of people known to hold bitcoins? > > spike > ______________________________________________ I don't think the medium of exchange is relevant here. Whether we are talking about digital, fiat currency, or gold, extortion and blackmail are a means to an end economically for the perpetrators. Would you say gold enables kidnapping? People will find a way to get gold if they need to to pay a random. In these ransomware cases, the perps conveniently supply links to educational materials on Bitcoin and to vendors for exchanging. They don't need to target those with fat Bitcoin wallets to get paid. I saw a Newshour story on a grandma who learned Bitcoin quickly to unlock her PC, which stored pics of her grandkids, after getting infected with ransomware. Respectfully, -Henry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Mar 24 00:04:20 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 17:04:20 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote for the day In-Reply-To: <01e001d18558$ed76d7e0$c86487a0$@att.net> References: <56F320D0.60808@aleph.se> <01e001d18558$ed76d7e0$c86487a0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 23, 2016 4:23 PM, "spike" wrote: > If so, does not bitcoin enable kidnapping? No more than money and the ability to negotiate do. In fact, arguably less. "Sure, nobody can trace your Bitcoins...despite them having a full history of transactions, so we just need to tell law enforcement to be on the lookout for ones that were transacted from this address at this time, which details the victims will provide in the hopes of getting their money back and/or extracting revenge." > And would not it create special opportunity targets of the families of people known to hold bitcoins? Any sufficiently wealthy person or group can purchase Bitcoins with minimal difficulty. The bar appears to be below the threshold where there's enough money to bother with kidnapping. Very few people kidnap the homeless in an attempt to profit. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Thu Mar 24 00:09:29 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 00:09:29 +0000 Subject: [ExI] quote for the day In-Reply-To: <01e001d18558$ed76d7e0$c86487a0$@att.net> References: <56F320D0.60808@aleph.se> <01e001d18558$ed76d7e0$c86487a0$@att.net> Message-ID: <56F33039.5010701@aleph.se> On 2016-03-23 23:08, spike wrote: > > Bitcoin hipsters please: while I was camping, I heard a Hollywood > hospital was hacked and its files held for ransom. It paid a fraction > of the demand, but did it in bitcoin. Is this true? If so, does not > bitcoin enable kidnapping? And would not it create special > opportunity targets of the families of people known to hold bitcoins? Yup, Hollywood Presbyterian was hit by ransomware: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/02/15/ransomware_scum_tear_up_tinsel_town_hospital_demand_record_36m/ And now a hospital in Kentucky got hit the same way: http://arstechnica.com/security/2016/03/kentucky-hospital-hit-by-ransomware-attack/ It is the (relative) untraceability of bitcoin that makes it useful for this kind of attack. Kidnappers and extortionists have always had trouble getting payment to work, but using digital money and software that act as smart contracts this has become much easier. The problem was discussed by Tim May and the other ur-cryptoanarchists on this very list back in the paleozoic 1990s. I recently reviewed that work for my paper on assassination technology (assassination markets were one of the "classic" dark ideas, and have actually been realized sort of - they likely do not work, but people have set up darknet markets for it). It is an interesting problem for independent cryptocurrencies and smart contract systems to avoid being too useful for this kind of crime. (Also overheard today: a friend suggesting to Robin that he was Satoshi. Robin argued that he would have used Lisp instead of C.) -- 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 Mar 24 00:43:42 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 17:43:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote for the day In-Reply-To: <56F33039.5010701@aleph.se> References: <56F320D0.60808@aleph.se> <01e001d18558$ed76d7e0$c86487a0$@att.net> <56F33039.5010701@aleph.se> Message-ID: <005901d18566$38778390$a9668ab0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg . >.It is the (relative) untraceability of bitcoin that makes it useful for this kind of attack. Kidnappers and extortionists have always had trouble getting payment to work, but using digital money and software that act as smart contracts this has become much easier. The problem was discussed by Tim May and the other ur-cryptoanarchists on this very list back in the paleozoic 1990s. I recently reviewed that work for my paper on assassination technology (assassination markets were one of the "classic" dark ideas, and have actually been realized sort of - they likely do not work, but people have set up darknet markets for it). It is an interesting problem for independent cryptocurrencies and smart contract systems to avoid being too useful for this kind of crime.-- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University Ja that is what I was thinking. For a typical kidnapper, the victim could record the serial numbers on all the money, or set up a camera at the pickup site if the demand is for gold. I don't think there is a foolproof way for the bad guys to get their money without something like bitcoin. So then, is it true that if a sleazebag demands a ransom in bitcoin, she can get away with it? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Mar 24 01:17:48 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 18:17:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote for the day In-Reply-To: <005901d18566$38778390$a9668ab0$@att.net> References: <56F320D0.60808@aleph.se> <01e001d18558$ed76d7e0$c86487a0$@att.net> <56F33039.5010701@aleph.se> <005901d18566$38778390$a9668ab0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 5:43 PM, spike wrote: > So then, is it true that if a sleazebag demands a ransom in bitcoin, she > can get away with it? > Would you bet your freedom and bank account on the FBI having not infiltrated all the major Bitcoin exchanges, in particular whichever one you happen to have your wallet at? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Mar 24 01:33:27 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 20:33:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] sciam blog article Message-ID: The Singularity and the Neural Code http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-singularity-and-the-neural-code/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20160323 bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Mar 24 02:24:00 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 19:24:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] sciam blog article In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 6:33 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-singularity-and-the-neural-code/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20160323 > Yet another piece confusing "really really hard" with "literally impossible". List readers, don't waste your time with this one. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Mar 24 02:15:16 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 19:15:16 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote for the day In-Reply-To: References: <56F320D0.60808@aleph.se> <01e001d18558$ed76d7e0$c86487a0$@att.net> <56F33039.5010701@aleph.se> <005901d18566$38778390$a9668ab0$@att.net> Message-ID: <007501d18573$02693e80$073bbb80$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Wednesday, March 23, 2016 6:18 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] quote for the day On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 at 5:43 PM, spike > wrote: So then, is it true that if a sleazebag demands a ransom in bitcoin, she can get away with it? >?Would you bet your freedom and bank account on the FBI having not infiltrated all the major Bitcoin exchanges, in particular whichever one you happen to have your wallet at? I wouldn?t. But what about the slimeballs who locked those hospitals? files? Did they get away? Couldn?t some commie get in cahoots with kidnappers here, make money on bitcoin? Is it really untraceable? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Mar 24 03:00:21 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 23:00:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] sciam blog article In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 William Flynn Wallace wrote: ?> ? > The Singularity and the Neural Code > > > http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-singularity-and-the-neural-code/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20160323 > > Koch doubts, however, that the neural code ?will be anything as simple and > as universal as the genetic code.? ?Well, we don't yet know what the brain's master learning algorithm is but we can put upper limits on how complex that algorithm can be, and we know for a fact it can't be all that complex. In the entire human genome there are only 3 billion base pairs. There are 4 bases so each base can represent 2 bits, there are 8 bits per byte so that comes out to 750 meg. Just 750 meg! And all that 750 meg certainly can be used just for the master learning software algorithm, you've got to leave room for instructions on how to build a human body as well as the brain hardware. So the instructions MUST contain wiring instructions such as "wire a neuron up this way and then repeat that procedure exactly the same way 917 billion times". And the 750 meg isn't even efficiently coded, there is a ridiculous amount of redundancy in the human genome. So there is no way, absolutely no way, the algorithm can be very complex, and if Evolution could find it then it's just a matter of time before we do too. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From protokol2020 at gmail.com Thu Mar 24 07:18:09 2016 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 08:18:09 +0100 Subject: [ExI] sciam blog article In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Those SciAm writers are ever more boring people. But this one, claiming something about how Shannon's limit of computations might be reached already in biological human brains and that via some "timing coding", which should be impossible to imitate even with digital computers .. he is beyond boring. That's silly, already. On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:00 AM, John Clark wrote: > > > On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > ?> ? >> The Singularity and the Neural Code >> >> >> http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-singularity-and-the-neural-code/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20160323 >> > >> Koch doubts, however, that the neural code ?will be anything as simple >> and as universal as the genetic code.? > > > ?Well, we don't yet know what the brain's master learning algorithm is > but we can put upper limits on how complex that algorithm can be, and we > know for a fact it can't be all that complex. In the entire human genome > there are only 3 billion base pairs. There are 4 bases so each base can > represent 2 bits, there are 8 bits per byte so that comes out to 750 meg. > Just 750 meg! And all that 750 meg certainly can be used just for the > master learning software algorithm, you've got to leave room for > instructions on how to build a human body as well as the brain hardware. > So the instructions MUST contain wiring instructions such as "wire a neuron > up this way and then repeat that procedure exactly the same way 917 billion > times". And the 750 meg isn't even efficiently coded, there is a ridiculous > amount of redundancy in the human genome. So there is no way, absolutely no > way, the algorithm can be very complex, and if Evolution could find it then > it's just a matter of time before we do too. > > John K Clark > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mar 24 09:13:37 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:13:37 +0000 Subject: [ExI] quote for the day In-Reply-To: <007501d18573$02693e80$073bbb80$@att.net> References: <56F320D0.60808@aleph.se> <01e001d18558$ed76d7e0$c86487a0$@att.net> <56F33039.5010701@aleph.se> <005901d18566$38778390$a9668ab0$@att.net> <007501d18573$02693e80$073bbb80$@att.net> Message-ID: <56F3AFC1.90003@aleph.se> On 2016-03-24 02:15, spike wrote: > > I wouldn?t. But what about the slimeballs who locked those hospitals? > files? Did they get away? Couldn?t some commie get in cahoots with > kidnappers here, make money on bitcoin? Is it really untraceable? > > The untraceability of bitcoin is debatable. Without mixing, the blockchain actually is a tamperproof, distributed accounting ledger of bitcoin transactions, so one would be able to find at least to what anonymous accounts the money went. However, there are mixing nodes that make it hard or impossible to follow an individual bitcoin... in principle. I get the impression there are practical limitations here. But the key practical limitation is that if the malware makers reside in a country with a government that looks the other way (especially for hacking stuff in countries they do not like anyway), then traceability does not matter much. Kidnapping is harder to succeed with than locking files, since you need to actually physically grab somebody, putting you in harm's way. Digital crimes can also be automated so you don't have to work so much. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From stathisp at gmail.com Thu Mar 24 10:54:13 2016 From: stathisp at gmail.com (Stathis Papaioannou) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:54:13 +1100 Subject: [ExI] quote for the day In-Reply-To: <005901d18566$38778390$a9668ab0$@att.net> References: <56F320D0.60808@aleph.se> <01e001d18558$ed76d7e0$c86487a0$@att.net> <56F33039.5010701@aleph.se> <005901d18566$38778390$a9668ab0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thursday, 24 March 2016, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org ] *On Behalf Of *Anders Sandberg > *?* > > >?It is the (relative) untraceability of bitcoin that makes it useful for this kind of attack. Kidnappers and extortionists have always had trouble getting payment to work, but using digital money and software that act as smart contracts this has become much easier. The problem was discussed by Tim May and the other ur-cryptoanarchists on this very list back in the paleozoic 1990s. I recently reviewed that work for my paper on assassination technology (assassination markets were one of the "classic" dark ideas, and have actually been realized sort of - they likely do not work, but people have set up darknet markets for it). It is an interesting problem for independent cryptocurrencies and smart contract systems to avoid being too useful for this kind of crime?-- > > > > Anders Sandberg > > Future of Humanity Institute > > Oxford Martin School > > Oxford University > > > > > > > > Ja that is what I was thinking. For a typical kidnapper, the victim could > record the serial numbers on all the money, or set up a camera at the > pickup site if the demand is for gold. I don?t think there is a foolproof > way for the bad guys to get their money without something like bitcoin. So > then, is it true that if a sleazebag demands a ransom in bitcoin, she can > get away with it? > > Bitcoin is not anonymous, it is pseudonymous. Every Bitcoin transaction is publicly logged, and it may be possible to trace transactions from an address that can ultimately be connected with a known entity, such as a Bitcoin exchange. Attempts can be made to make the tracing process more difficult, for example using Bitcoin mixers, but it is not a guarantee of anonymity. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Anonymity -- Stathis Papaioannou -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Mar 24 13:43:22 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 06:43:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote for the day In-Reply-To: <56F3AFC1.90003@aleph.se> References: <56F320D0.60808@aleph.se> <01e001d18558$ed76d7e0$c86487a0$@att.net> <56F33039.5010701@aleph.se> <005901d18566$38778390$a9668ab0$@att.net> <007501d18573$02693e80$073bbb80$@att.net> <56F3AFC1.90003@aleph.se> Message-ID: <00ff01d185d3$22a753c0$67f5fb40$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg Subject: Re: [ExI] quote for the day On 2016-03-24 02:15, spike wrote: I wouldn't. But what about the slimeballs who locked those hospitals' files? Did they get away? Couldn't some commie get in cahoots with kidnappers here, make money on bitcoin? Is it really untraceable? The untraceability of bitcoin is debatable. Kidnapping is harder to succeed with than locking files, since you need to actually physically grab somebody, putting you in harm's way. Digital crimes can also be automated so you don't have to work so much. -- Anders Sandberg Well sure Anders, but do let me press this just a little harder, for it is important. Infidel out drinking with her sorority buddies, better call a taxi, Uber driver takes her somewhere and handcuffs her to something that won't move, no struggles for she is unconscious, Uber driver calls her confederate in Iran who delivers the ransom demand to the University. There are no descriptions of anyone, for the Uber driver had a fake license plate on her car, which no one noted anyway, the kidnapped passenger cannot describe anyone, for the driver was wearing a hajib and the victim is alone when she comes to her senses. They pay, find the victim unharmed, Mohammad and his concubine get away with the money. So my question is this please, bitcoin hipsters: do we really have an answer to those who claim bitcoin enables some kinds of really serious crime? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Mar 24 14:14:30 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 09:14:30 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day Message-ID: Well, my last one evolved to a discussion of bitcoin. I wonder where this one will go: "There's not a lack of love in the world, but there is a dearth of willing recipients and an abundance of hesitant givers." me -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Mar 24 14:54:38 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 07:54:38 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bitcoin used for nefarious purposes: was RE: quote for the day Message-ID: <014901d185dd$17095810$451c0830$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of spike . >.Well sure . the kidnapped passenger cannot describe anyone, for the driver was wearing a hajib and the victim is alone when she comes to her senses. They pay, find the victim unharmed, Mohammad and his concubine get away with the money.So my question is this please, bitcoin hipsters: do we really have an answer to those who claim bitcoin enables some kinds of really serious crime? spike It is really giving me heartburn: if the good guys can think of these kinds of capers, the bad guys are thinking of ten times as many and ten times worse. My own imagination breaks down as soon as any crime gets to physically harming the victim, for my mind just doesn't go there. But the bad guys don't reach any barrier at all at that point. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Thu Mar 24 16:02:21 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:02:21 +0000 Subject: [ExI] quote for the day In-Reply-To: <00ff01d185d3$22a753c0$67f5fb40$@att.net> References: <56F320D0.60808@aleph.se> <01e001d18558$ed76d7e0$c86487a0$@att.net> <56F33039.5010701@aleph.se> <005901d18566$38778390$a9668ab0$@att.net> <007501d18573$02693e80$073bbb80$@att.net> <56F3AFC1.90003@aleph.se> <00ff01d185d3$22a753c0$67f5fb40$@att.net> Message-ID: <56F40F8D.9090305@aleph.se> On 2016-03-24 13:43, spike wrote: > Well sure Anders, but do let me press this just a little harder, for > it is important. Infidel out drinking with her sorority buddies, > better call a taxi, Uber driver takes her somewhere and handcuffs her > to something that won?t move, no struggles for she is unconscious, > Uber driver calls her confederate in Iran who delivers the ransom > demand to the University. There are no descriptions of anyone, for > the Uber driver had a fake license plate on her car, which no one > noted anyway, the kidnapped passenger cannot describe anyone, for the > driver was wearing a hajib and the victim is alone when she comes to > her senses. They pay, find the victim unharmed, Mohammad and his > concubine get away with the money. That thought experiment crashes because of Uber. Remeber, Uber makes jitney cabs realistic because it connects customers and drivers and ansures reputations for both. Maybe not perfectly, but the shady driver now has a GPS-linked trail and inks to the kidnapped customer, residing in a cloud service that cannot be tampered with. But sure, you can replace Uber with someone pretending to be a proper cab. Really serious crime typically requires physical presence and physical actions, but these are increasingly traceable. Really *profitable* crime on the other hand can be virtual and hands-off. In my assassination paper I argue that we can design online currencies and contract systems to allow neutralization or even tracing of odious contracts, but it is a design-time consideration to add this feature. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Mar 24 17:51:01 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 10:51:01 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bitcoin used for nefarious purposes: was RE: quote for the day In-Reply-To: <014901d185dd$17095810$451c0830$@att.net> References: <014901d185dd$17095810$451c0830$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 24, 2016 8:09 AM, "spike" wrote: > It is really giving me heartburn: if the good guys can think of these kinds of capers, the bad guys are thinking of ten times as many and ten times worse. My own imagination breaks down as soon as any crime gets to physically harming the victim, for my mind just doesn?t go there. But the bad guys don?t reach any barrier at all at that point. Actually, they kinda do, just not the barrier you're thinking of. If you are competent enough to imagine the most vile crimes, you are also competent enough to think through their most likely outcomes...including the likelihood of actually achieving whatever end you seek if you use nefarious means. For the most complex schemes, this usually comes out solidly in favor of using means that will not engender active opposition - in other words, ones that nobody objects to, thus "good" (or at least "neutral") for many definitions of that term. Do you think suicide bombers would bother if they could foresee that the result of their actions was not people kneeling in terror, but rather - as it has been, for the most part - binding together even stronger to oppose what the bomber sought to promote? What about these ransomers, if they really knew just how thoroughly even Bitcoin is traced? Ask just about any law enforcement officer and they can confirm, most criminals are of below average ability to figure out how to live and work within society (a specific application of intelligence). In other words: the good guys can, on average, think of worse than the bad guys for the same reason that they are the good guys. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Mar 24 18:06:35 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 11:06:35 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bitcoin used for nefarious purposes: was RE: quote for the day In-Reply-To: References: <014901d185dd$17095810$451c0830$@att.net> Message-ID: <01af01d185f7$e80a4ae0$b81ee0a0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 10:51 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] bitcoin used for nefarious purposes: was RE: quote for the day On Mar 24, 2016 8:09 AM, "spike" > wrote: >>? It is really giving me heartburn: if the good guys can think of these kinds of capers, the bad guys are thinking of ten times as many and ten times worse?. >?In other words: the good guys can, on average, think of worse than the bad guys for the same reason that they are the good guys. Sure OK, um? cool. Sorta. Simple question sir: did the hospital hackers get away with money? If so, they just demonstrated a really good reason to get the hell out of bitcoin immediately; if you own it, sell it while you still can, all of it. If the bad guys got away with this, they just demonstrated a means to collect a ransom payment, and that leads di-freaking-rectly to all manner of bad things happening and all governments everywhere outlawing all crypto currency. This is a bad thing. It pains me to admit this, but here goes: if the hospital hackers got away with anything, the bitcoin critics were right all along. Talk me down Adrian and Kelly. I don?t own bitcoin, but if I did I would be bailing out of it forthwith. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Mar 24 18:36:45 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 11:36:45 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bitcoin used for nefarious purposes: was RE: quote for the day In-Reply-To: <01af01d185f7$e80a4ae0$b81ee0a0$@att.net> References: <014901d185dd$17095810$451c0830$@att.net> <01af01d185f7$e80a4ae0$b81ee0a0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 24, 2016 11:20 AM, "spike" wrote: > If the bad guys got away with this, they just demonstrated a means to collect a ransom payment, and that leads di-freaking-rectly to all manner of bad things happening and all governments everywhere outlawing all crypto currency. This is where your logic breaks down. What does it lead directly to, that the government would object to, that is not already being done in fae greater quantity and to more public outcry with other currencies, particularly US dollars? "All manner of bad things" is usually not something to panic about: if better quantatization than that is not possible, then most likely, the actual bad things that will happen are far smaller than they seem. Also, since when do legislators and regulators respond to actual crimes? They respond to public reaction. Has this incident gained anywhere near the media attention that the latest celebrity scandal has? If not, then the legislators and regulators will probably ignore it until and unless such outcry is raised over something else. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Mar 24 19:45:27 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 12:45:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bitcoin used for nefarious purposes: was RE: quote for the day In-Reply-To: References: <014901d185dd$17095810$451c0830$@att.net> <01af01d185f7$e80a4ae0$b81ee0a0$@att.net> Message-ID: <020101d18605$b7798d10$266ca730$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 11:37 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] bitcoin used for nefarious purposes: was RE: quote for the day On Mar 24, 2016 11:20 AM, "spike" > wrote: >>? If the bad guys got away with this, they just demonstrated a means to collect a ransom payment, and that leads di-freaking-rectly to all manner of bad things happening and all governments everywhere outlawing all crypto currency. >?This is where your logic breaks down. >?What does it lead directly to, that the government would object to, that is not already being done in fae greater quantity and to more public outcry with other currencies, particularly US dollars? >?"All manner of bad things" is usually not something to panic about: if better quantatization than that is not possible, then most likely, the actual bad things that will happen are far smaller than they seem. >?Also, since when do legislators and regulators respond to actual crimes? They respond to public reaction. Has this incident gained anywhere near the media attention that the latest celebrity scandal has? If not, then the legislators and regulators will probably ignore it until and unless such outcry is raised over something else? Adrian Adrian, I think the world of you my brother, and I hope you are right. But there isn?t a word in your reply (or Anders? comments for that matter) that convinces me the bitcoin critics were wrong. If they got away with it, that hospital caper has demonstrated a way for the bad guys to do their nefarious deeds and get paid. If so, this leads directly to governments everywhere just saying no to cryptocurrency for a legitimate reason: it enables the kinds of crime we don?t want. If I owned any bitcoin I would be bailing out headfirst forthwith. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu Thu Mar 24 20:26:32 2016 From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:26:32 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bitcoin used for nefarious purposes: was RE: quote for the day In-Reply-To: <020101d18605$b7798d10$266ca730$@att.net> References: <014901d185dd$17095810$451c0830$@att.net> <01af01d185f7$e80a4ae0$b81ee0a0$@att.net> <020101d18605$b7798d10$266ca730$@att.net> Message-ID: <36EB210A-C6E7-473C-B028-7594DE3E6F0B@alumni.virginia.edu> On Mar 24, 2016, at 3:45 PM, spike wrote: > Adrian, I think the world of you my brother, and I hope you are right. But there isn?t a word in your reply (or Anders? comments for that matter) that convinces me the bitcoin critics were wrong. If they got away with it, that hospital caper has demonstrated a way for the bad guys to do their nefarious deeds and get paid. If so, this leads directly to governments everywhere just saying no to cryptocurrency for a legitimate reason: it enables the kinds of crime we don?t want. > If I owned any bitcoin I would be bailing out headfirst forthwith. > > spike > The trouble is that perps spreading ransomware don't care if you have a Bitcoin wallet. They know you will create one to free your pc if needed. > it enables the kinds of crime we don?t want. What kind of crime do we want, btw? Your position implies are you anti-encryption as well now. It can facilitate concealment of crimes in addition to dick pics, you know. http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/john-oliver-why-the-apple-fbi-fight-extends-way-past-dick-pics-20160314 -Henry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Thu Mar 24 21:42:30 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 21:42:30 +0000 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56F45F46.9000903@aleph.se> On 2016-03-24 14:14, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Well, my last one evolved to a discussion of bitcoin. I wonder where > this one will go: > > "There's not a lack of love in the world, but there is a dearth of > willing recipients and an abundance of hesitant givers." me I am reminded of my latest sf reading, "The Affinities" by Robert Charles Wilson. A personality test can detect which of 22 "affinities" you belong to, and help you find people you fit with. Imagine being in a group where people naturally understand you, trust and trustworthiness is easy... It is an intelligent take on prosocial sorting. -- 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 Mar 24 22:07:46 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 15:07:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bitcoin used for nefarious purposes: was RE: quote for the day In-Reply-To: <36EB210A-C6E7-473C-B028-7594DE3E6F0B@alumni.virginia.edu> References: <014901d185dd$17095810$451c0830$@att.net> <01af01d185f7$e80a4ae0$b81ee0a0$@att.net> <020101d18605$b7798d10$266ca730$@att.net> <36EB210A-C6E7-473C-B028-7594DE3E6F0B@alumni.virginia.edu> Message-ID: <027101d18619$99c3deb0$cd4b9c10$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Henry Rivera ? >?Your position implies are you anti-encryption as well now. It can facilitate concealment of crimes in addition to dick pics, you know. http://www.rollingstone.com/tv/news/john-oliver-why-the-apple-fbi-fight-extends-way-past-dick-pics-20160314 >?-Henry Ja, my position is filled with cognitive dissonance, a very uncomfortable place to be. By opposing crypto-currency, or even acknowledging the threat, we enable crime at the enforcement level. Consider three cases: Case 1: both parties in a transaction are overt Case 2: one party is overt, the other covert Case 3: both parties are covert Most of our transactions are case 1. We buy stuff with credit cards, there is a record made of what we bought, how much spent, etc. Neither party is trying to hide. We have a mechanism for that exchange: credit cards. Case 3: Both parties want to hide. Good chance this is how you pay a harlot. I have no expertise in that transaction, but would assume that is done with cash. So we have a mechanism in place for that. Case 2: now this becomes an adversarial transaction. There are two subcases: A) where the payee wants to be covert and the payer wants everything known, and B) the payer wants to be covert and the paid person is open. Case 2B example perhaps someone buying porno or a guy paying off a victim of a sex crime. We don?t care about that. Almost nobody cares about that case 2B. Kidnapping is a case 2A. That?s definitely the kind of crime we don?t want. It looks to me like the hospital ransom caper is a bad case 2A. Ja? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Thu Mar 24 22:23:23 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 22:23:23 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist webcomics of the day Message-ID: <56F468DB.2000802@aleph.se> Questionable Content had two very transhumanist comics recently: http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3183 http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3184 And SMBC has some good rocket science: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4040 http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4035 and robot theology: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3990 And Schlock Mercenary has gone off in a fairly transhumanist direction since last year when the immortality nanomachines became publicly available: http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2015-04-26 http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2016-03-16 http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2015-06-04 Of course, the AI-gods have been around for years in the comic. Now they are wrestling with the Fermi paradox: http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2016-01-21 http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2016-02-06 -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Mar 24 22:28:01 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:28:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day In-Reply-To: <56F45F46.9000903@aleph.se> References: <56F45F46.9000903@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 4:42 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 2016-03-24 14:14, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Well, my last one evolved to a discussion of bitcoin. I wonder where this > one will go: > > "There's not a lack of love in the world, but there is a dearth of willing > recipients and an abundance of hesitant givers." me > > > I am reminded of my latest sf reading, "The Affinities" by Robert Charles > Wilson. A personality test can detect which of 22 "affinities" you belong > to, and help you find people you fit with. Imagine being in a group where > people naturally understand you, trust and trustworthiness is easy... It is > an intelligent take on prosocial sorting. > > ?I ordered three of his books based on your recommendation, following a couple by the really strange author with a really strange name, which I cannot remember. You are costing me money, but in a good way. My memory is just as good as it ever was, but I can't stop forgetting to remember. (No, it's not a silly paradox - it's called metamemorial functioning). Dilbert today is really good - about engineers, bosses, and intuition. Don't miss it if you can. bill w? > > -- > 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 foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Mar 24 22:30:32 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:30:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist webcomics of the day In-Reply-To: <56F468DB.2000802@aleph.se> References: <56F468DB.2000802@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 5:23 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > Questionable Content had two very transhumanist comics recently: > http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3183 > http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3184 > > And SMBC has some good rocket science: > http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4040 > http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4035 > and robot theology: > http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3990 > > And Schlock Mercenary has gone off in a fairly transhumanist direction > since last year when the immortality nanomachines became publicly available: > http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2015-04-26 > http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2016-03-16 > http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2015-06-04 > Of course, the AI-gods have been around for years in the comic. Now they > are wrestling with the Fermi paradox: > http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2016-01-21 > http://www.schlockmercenary.com/2016-02-06 > > -- > Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Oxford University > > ?Sorry - link for Dilbert is dilb > ?ert.com > ?? > > ? 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 rhanson at gmu.edu Thu Mar 24 05:03:07 2016 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin D Hanson) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 05:03:07 +0000 Subject: [ExI] sciam blog article In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <3311F050-F98D-4E43-9A44-BAF78BFB9C23@gmu.edu> On Mar 24, 2016, at 3:00 AM, John Clark > wrote: On Wed, Mar 23, 2016 William Flynn Wallace > wrote: ?> ? The Singularity and the Neural Code http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/the-singularity-and-the-neural-code/?WT.mc_id=SA_MB_20160323 Koch doubts, however, that the neural code ?will be anything as simple and as universal as the genetic code.? ?Well, we don't yet know what the brain's master learning algorithm is but we can put upper limits on how complex that algorithm can be, and we know for a fact it can't be all that complex. In the entire human genome there are only 3 billion base pairs. There are 4 bases so each base can represent 2 bits, there are 8 bits per byte so that comes out to 750 meg. Just 750 meg! And all that 750 meg certainly can be used just for the master learning software algorithm, you've got to leave room for instructions on how to build a human body as well as the brain hardware. So the instructions MUST contain wiring instructions such as "wire a neuron up this way and then repeat that procedure exactly the same way 917 billion times". And the 750 meg isn't even efficiently coded, there is a ridiculous amount of redundancy in the human genome. So there is no way, absolutely no way, the algorithm can be very complex, and if Evolution could find it then it's just a matter of time before we do too. You can code an awful lot of complexity into even 100MB of code, and if that is non-modular spaghetti object code instead of modular documented source code, it could take an awful long time to figure out. 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 spike66 at att.net Thu Mar 24 23:32:46 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:32:46 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day In-Reply-To: <56F45F46.9000903@aleph.se> References: <56F45F46.9000903@aleph.se> Message-ID: <02c401d18625$78c9fb70$6a5df250$@att.net> >. Imagine being in a group where people naturally understand you, trust and trustworthiness is easy... It is an intelligent take on prosocial sorting. -- Anders Sandberg If I ever found myself in a group of people who trusted me and all trusted each other, I would immediately be suspicious of all of them. I would know the sons a bitches are plotting, trying to lull me into gullible complacency, then BAM they get me. Anders, if you take a group of beasts and remove the wolves, pretty soon new wolves arise from among the sheep. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Mar 24 23:38:04 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 16:38:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist webcomics of the day In-Reply-To: <56F468DB.2000802@aleph.se> References: <56F468DB.2000802@aleph.se> Message-ID: <02c901d18626$372c1490$a5843db0$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist webcomics of the day Questionable Content had two very transhumanist comics recently: http://questionablecontent.net/view.php?comic=3183 ... -- Anders Sandberg Anders, whoever drew this comic went to the trouble of having genuine entropy equations in the background. I see this as excellent craftsmanship, as seen in the chalkboard scenes in Big Bang Theory: they put real equations back there, when they could easily assume no one would notice or care if they put any random foolishness in the background. spike From spike66 at att.net Fri Mar 25 00:12:43 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 17:12:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Transhumanist webcomics of the day In-Reply-To: <56F468DB.2000802@aleph.se> References: <56F468DB.2000802@aleph.se> Message-ID: <02fe01d1862b$0e01cdd0$2a056970$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg ... And SMBC has some good rocket science: http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=4040 Anders Sandberg Thanks Anders, another example of excellent craftsmanship in the comics. The MSDS baseball diamond shows a blue 3, which means the stuff can hurt you badly, a red 4 which means highly flammable gas and a yellow nada which means it is chemically stable non-corrosive, with no special handling requirements which would be in the white octant below. An example of that code might be propane, reasoning: gas at STP, flammable, can cause frostbite if you spill it on yourself but non-corrosive in itself, chemically stable and neutral, with no special handling cautions besides the already-noted flammability and don't get it on your bare skin. Propane would fit all those. Propane can be used to get delta V. Lots of good rocket-geek humor there. A sight gag of carrying that stuff in a bucket for instance: it would be boiling away flammable gas. Rocket geek companies really do have people like this. Whoever drew that strip went to some trouble to get a real MSDS to fit the setting. spike From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Mar 25 01:10:02 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 20:10:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day In-Reply-To: <02c401d18625$78c9fb70$6a5df250$@att.net> References: <56F45F46.9000903@aleph.se> <02c401d18625$78c9fb70$6a5df250$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 6:32 PM, spike wrote: > > > >? Imagine being in a group where people naturally understand you, trust > and trustworthiness is easy... It is an intelligent take on prosocial > sorting. > > -- Anders Sandberg > > > If I ever found myself in a group of people who trusted me and all trusted each other, I would immedi > ?ately be? > suspicious of all of them. > > I would know the sons a bitches are plotting, trying to lull me into gullible complacency, then BAM they get me. > Anders, if you take a group of beasts and remove the wolves, pretty soon new wolves arise from among the sheep. > > spike > > ?Interesting. Paranoid, or just practical? If we could breed or > genetically modify humans to where they are like my wife - more interested > in others' happiness than her own and has no greed whatsoever - should we? > Or would we also unfortunately get rid of our competitiveness/selfishness > (can you have one without the other of those two?)? (My wife, Ste. Roz, > would win any worldwide contest for Cheap Date - has to be practically > forced to spend money on herself, and aren't you jealous?). 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Mar 25 01:36:26 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 18:36:26 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day In-Reply-To: <02c401d18625$78c9fb70$6a5df250$@att.net> References: <56F45F46.9000903@aleph.se> <02c401d18625$78c9fb70$6a5df250$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 24, 2016, at 4:32 PM, spike wrote: > >? Imagine being in a group where people naturally understand you, trust and trustworthiness is easy... It is an intelligent take on prosocial sorting. > -- > Anders Sandberg > > > If I ever found myself in a group of people who trusted me and all trusted each other, I would immediately be suspicious of all of them. I would know the sons a bitches are plotting, trying to lull me into gullible complacency, then BAM they get me. > > Anders, if you take a group of beasts and remove the wolves, pretty soon new wolves arise from among the sheep. Well, then I think the group you'd fit into best would be one with some palpable level of mutual mistrust, no? ;) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Mar 25 01:38:43 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 18:38:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bitcoin used for nefarious purposes: was RE: quote for the day In-Reply-To: <027101d18619$99c3deb0$cd4b9c10$@att.net> References: <014901d185dd$17095810$451c0830$@att.net> <01af01d185f7$e80a4ae0$b81ee0a0$@att.net> <020101d18605$b7798d10$266ca730$@att.net> <36EB210A-C6E7-473C-B028-7594DE3E6F0B@alumni.virginia.edu> <027101d18619$99c3deb0$cd4b9c10$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 3:07 PM, spike wrote: > Case 2: now this becomes an adversarial transaction. > Not necessarily. Some masked person walks into a store, buys stuff and pays cash, then leaves - the payer is anonymous and the payee doesn't care. Many such businesses would prefer not to keep records, in fact. ("Loyalty programs? Repeat customer discounts? That's so much work. You get here, buy your stuff, and get out. We stock stuff that's in demand and sell it to you. Easy, honest money.") -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Mar 25 01:46:40 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 18:46:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bitcoin used for nefarious purposes: was RE: quote for the day In-Reply-To: References: <014901d185dd$17095810$451c0830$@att.net> <01af01d185f7$e80a4ae0$b81ee0a0$@att.net> <020101d18605$b7798d10$266ca730$@att.net> <36EB210A-C6E7-473C-B028-7594DE3E6F0B@alumni.virginia.edu> <027101d18619$99c3deb0$cd4b9c10$@att.net> Message-ID: <000a01d18638$2e1629b0$8a427d10$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Thursday, March 24, 2016 6:39 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] bitcoin used for nefarious purposes: was RE: quote for the day On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 3:07 PM, spike > wrote: Case 2: now this becomes an adversarial transaction. Not necessarily. Some masked person walks into a store, buys stuff and pays cash, then leaves - the payer is anonymous and the payee doesn't care. Many such businesses would prefer not to keep records, in fact. ("Loyalty programs? Repeat customer discounts? That's so much work. You get here, buy your stuff, and get out. We stock stuff that's in demand and sell it to you. Easy, honest money.") Ja good point. In Case 2A, there is a difference between overt don?t care and overt wants to find ID of payee. In your first part, if a masked person comes into a store, immediately everyone is on alert. That illustrates the point of this thread: our attempts at privacy arouse suspicion because it is perceived to enable crime. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From avant at sollegro.com Fri Mar 25 02:31:49 2016 From: avant at sollegro.com (Stuart LaForge) Date: Thu, 24 Mar 2016 19:31:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] paradox Message-ID: <5qk3fie0bsyevoyj5v2rtpf1.1458872284032@email.android.com> I am not an HVAC expert, Bill, but my first thought is that your thermostat might be in a less than ideal location. Thermostats operate by adjusting the overall temperature of the entire living space, based on the temperature of the small localized region that they are placed. This can lead to sampling bias. So perhaps your thermostat is directly across from window that receives direct sunlight during the summer or shares a wall with an electrical appliance that operates more frequently during the summer? Something like a refrigerator or an electric fan? Just a thought. Stuart LaForge Sent from my phone. From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Mar 25 14:32:23 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:32:23 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame Message-ID: "How public, like a frog, to sing your name the livelong June, to an admiring bog." Emily Dickinson -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Mar 25 14:36:11 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 07:36:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <002c01d186a3$addcb950$09962bf0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 7:32 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame "How public, like a frog, to sing your name the livelong June, to an admiring bog." Emily Dickinson Ja, the public does like a frog. They talk funny, but all the French people I knew were good folks. They like us Yanks pretty well too I think. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Mar 25 15:38:32 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:38:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] paradox In-Reply-To: <5qk3fie0bsyevoyj5v2rtpf1.1458872284032@email.android.com> References: <5qk3fie0bsyevoyj5v2rtpf1.1458872284032@email.android.com> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 9:31 PM, Stuart LaForge wrote: > I am not an HVAC expert, Bill, but my first thought is that your > thermostat might be in a less than ideal location. Thermostats operate by > adjusting the overall temperature of the entire living space, based on the > temperature of the small localized region that they are placed. > > This can lead to sampling bias. So perhaps your thermostat is directly > across from window that receives direct sunlight during the summer or > shares a wall with an electrical appliance that operates more frequently > during the summer? Something like a refrigerator or an electric fan? > > Just a thought. > > Stuart LaForge > > Sent from my phone. > ?Thermostat is in the hall above the return. The hall is usually at a different temp - cooler in winter. Thanks to everyone who replied. I have no idea who if anyone is correct, maybe radiating walls or homeostasis or who knows, and in any case it's not a problem?. 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Mar 25 15:58:54 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 08:58:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5F5CE2D4-BEC0-43EB-AAF7-3FA1B87F0082@gmail.com> On Mar 25, 2016, at 7:32 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > "How public, like a frog, to sing your name the livelong June, to an admiring bog." > > Emily Dickinson Why not the whole poem and try to keep the lineation and punctuation? https://m.poets.org/poetsorg/poem/im-nobody-who-are-you-260 By the way, I don't believe I've read that one before, though I like many of her poems, especially this one: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/182805 Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Mar 25 16:03:00 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:03:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame In-Reply-To: <002c01d186a3$addcb950$09962bf0$@att.net> References: <002c01d186a3$addcb950$09962bf0$@att.net> Message-ID: <92A04D60-9437-4B6F-AA67-491F8D9CEAE8@gmail.com> On Mar 25, 2016, at 7:36 AM, spike wrote: > From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace > Sent: Friday, March 25, 2016 7:32 AM > To: ExI chat list > Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame > > "How public, like a frog, to sing your name the livelong June, to an admiring bog." > > Emily Dickinson > > > Ja, the public does like a frog. They talk funny, but all the French people I knew were good folks. They like us Yanks pretty well too I think. I took it literally -- as in actual anurans croaking away to the annoyance of the narrator. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Mar 25 16:34:21 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 09:34:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame In-Reply-To: <92A04D60-9437-4B6F-AA67-491F8D9CEAE8@gmail.com> References: <002c01d186a3$addcb950$09962bf0$@att.net> <92A04D60-9437-4B6F-AA67-491F8D9CEAE8@gmail.com> Message-ID: <00a101d186b4$2fd8aee0$8f8a0ca0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan "How public, like a frog, to sing your name the livelong June, to an admiring bog." Emily Dickinson Ja, the public does like a frog. They talk funny, but all the French people I knew were good folks. They like us Yanks pretty well too I think. I took it literally -- as in actual anurans croaking away to the annoyance of the narrator. Regards, Dan I aughta make my nickname Ruup. Then all the frogs would sing my name to an admiring bog. Advertising: perhaps the most effective TV advertisement ever made was the Budweiser frogs. Didn?t cost much to make, no celebrities or sports stars to pay, memorable, you knew exactly what they were selling. I saw that brilliant 30 second ad ONE TIME, one damn time, over twenty years ago, and I remember it well. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcxcGwg1_ac &ebc=ANyPxKrGW2tNwTSJ2eZxub-PhOziOcIZHY89g28TX7ORgHnwojKFlqcKgqUWZmUZsYHgyBVkasS6NsgYp8WwAqfhjxqVIkaoOA Simple idea, very simple execution, perhaps inspired by the Dickinson poem, sold seas of Budweiser. Contrast: the annoying ten?nine?eight PLUTO commercial in front of so many internet clips. Expensive to make because it required two elaborate sets, at least three costumes and lots of actors, completely unclear what is actually being sold or what brand of whatever it is we are to buy. Perhaps the greatest accomplishment of poetry is its inherent ambiguity. It keeps college literature professors employed. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Mar 25 17:23:59 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:23:59 +0000 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame In-Reply-To: <00a101d186b4$2fd8aee0$8f8a0ca0$@att.net> References: <002c01d186a3$addcb950$09962bf0$@att.net> <92A04D60-9437-4B6F-AA67-491F8D9CEAE8@gmail.com> <00a101d186b4$2fd8aee0$8f8a0ca0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 25 March 2016 at 16:34, spike wrote: > > I aughta make my nickname Ruup. Then all the frogs would sing my name to an > admiring bog. > > Advertising: perhaps the most effective TV advertisement ever made was the > Budweiser frogs. Didn?t cost much to make, no celebrities or sports stars > to pay, memorable, you knew exactly what they were selling. I saw that > brilliant 30 second ad ONE TIME, one damn time, over twenty years ago, and I > remember it well. > Did you know...... that there are about 5000 species of frogs in the world? And the 'ribbit ribbit' croak that everybody recognises as the frog noise is only made by one species of frog? (Actually 3 similar species from the same area). Reason - People have heard 'ribbit ribbit' in almost every night time scene in old Hollywood films. And it is the croak made by the 3 species of frogs in California near the film studios where the early films were made. BillK From spike66 at att.net Fri Mar 25 17:37:15 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 10:37:15 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame In-Reply-To: References: <002c01d186a3$addcb950$09962bf0$@att.net> <92A04D60-9437-4B6F-AA67-491F8D9CEAE8@gmail.com> <00a101d186b4$2fd8aee0$8f8a0ca0$@att.net> Message-ID: <001501d186bc$fa1a8270$ee4f8750$@att.net> >... On Behalf Of BillK Subject: Re: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame On 25 March 2016 at 16:34, spike wrote: > >>... I aughta make my nickname Ruup. Then all the frogs would sing my name > to an admiring bog. > Did you know...... that there are about 5000 species of frogs in the world? And the 'ribbit ribbit' croak that everybody recognises as the frog noise is only made by one species of frog? (Actually 3 similar species from the same area)...it is the croak made by the 3 species of frogs in California near the film studios where the early films were made...BillK _______________________________________________ Does art imitate life or does life imitate art? BillK gives a good example of fiction defining reality. This meandering thread is a perfect illustration of why I hang out here after all these years: ExI Chat is a busy and fruitful idea factory. BillW tosses out a fragment of an obscure poem, we take it away, talking about advertisement, frogs, poetry, pretty much anything. Emily Dickenson would have fallen out of her chair laughing at where her work led us. People here generally don't care who gets credit for the ideas; they just toss them into this imaginative information maelstrom and see what comes spinning out, spontaneous extropy. Thanks everyone here. You are delightful company. spike From atymes at gmail.com Fri Mar 25 18:50:03 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 11:50:03 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame In-Reply-To: <001501d186bc$fa1a8270$ee4f8750$@att.net> References: <002c01d186a3$addcb950$09962bf0$@att.net> <92A04D60-9437-4B6F-AA67-491F8D9CEAE8@gmail.com> <00a101d186b4$2fd8aee0$8f8a0ca0$@att.net> <001501d186bc$fa1a8270$ee4f8750$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 25, 2016 10:52 AM, "spike" wrote: > This meandering thread is a perfect illustration of why I hang out here after all these years: ExI Chat is a busy and fruitful idea factory. BillW tosses out a fragment of an obscure poem, we take it away, talking about advertisement, frogs, poetry, pretty much anything. Emily Dickenson would have fallen out of her chair laughing at where her work led us. Yeah. It's threads like this that keep the list from croaking. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Mar 25 18:57:04 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 13:57:04 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame In-Reply-To: <001501d186bc$fa1a8270$ee4f8750$@att.net> References: <002c01d186a3$addcb950$09962bf0$@att.net> <92A04D60-9437-4B6F-AA67-491F8D9CEAE8@gmail.com> <00a101d186b4$2fd8aee0$8f8a0ca0$@att.net> <001501d186bc$fa1a8270$ee4f8750$@att.net> Message-ID: spike - Perhaps the greatest accomplishment of poetry is its inherent ambiguity. It keeps college literature professors employed. I can tell that you have not read much poetry lately. 'Ambiguous' doesn't go half far enough. Try some of the New Yorker's poems, then redefine ambiguity as obsurantism. I have a degree in English also and I can't make heads or tails of them, though other body parts seem more appropriate to that poetry. Dickinson, Whitman - these are my kind of folks - oh, and Robert Service's The Cremation of Sam Mcgee - we just don't get that kind of rhythm anymore, or even rhyme: http://www.poetryfoundation.org/poem/174348 bill w On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 12:37 PM, spike wrote: > > >... On Behalf Of BillK > Subject: Re: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame > > On 25 March 2016 at 16:34, spike wrote: > > > >>... I aughta make my nickname Ruup. Then all the frogs would sing my > name > > to an admiring bog. > > > > Did you know...... that there are about 5000 species of frogs in the world? > > And the 'ribbit ribbit' croak that everybody recognises as the frog noise > is only made by one species of frog? (Actually 3 similar species from the > same area)...it is the croak made by the 3 species of frogs in California > near the film studios where the early films were made...BillK > > _______________________________________________ > > > Does art imitate life or does life imitate art? BillK gives a good > example of fiction defining reality. > > This meandering thread is a perfect illustration of why I hang out here > after all these years: ExI Chat is a busy and fruitful idea factory. > BillW tosses out a fragment of an obscure poem, we take it away, talking > about advertisement, frogs, poetry, pretty much anything. Emily Dickenson > would have fallen out of her chair laughing at where her work led us. > > People here generally don't care who gets credit for the ideas; they just > toss them into this imaginative information maelstrom and see what comes > spinning out, spontaneous extropy. Thanks everyone here. You are > delightful company. > > 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 Fri Mar 25 19:00:09 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:00:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame In-Reply-To: References: <002c01d186a3$addcb950$09962bf0$@att.net> <92A04D60-9437-4B6F-AA67-491F8D9CEAE8@gmail.com> <00a101d186b4$2fd8aee0$8f8a0ca0$@att.net> <001501d186bc$fa1a8270$ee4f8750$@att.net> Message-ID: <004601d186c8$8e1afe90$aa50fbb0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Subject: Re: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame On Mar 25, 2016 10:52 AM, "spike" > wrote: > >? ExI Chat is a busy and fruitful idea factory?talking about advertisement, frogs, poetry, pretty much anything? >?Yeah. It's threads like this that keep the list from croaking? Ja. We have never frog otten how pun wars get started here. Just one typo in some cases, and it is a short hop to chaos. The whole discussion can metamorphose. One innocent comment anura merciless punster, oy vey. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Mar 25 19:55:50 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 12:55:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame In-Reply-To: <001501d186bc$fa1a8270$ee4f8750$@att.net> References: <002c01d186a3$addcb950$09962bf0$@att.net> <92A04D60-9437-4B6F-AA67-491F8D9CEAE8@gmail.com> <00a101d186b4$2fd8aee0$8f8a0ca0$@att.net> <001501d186bc$fa1a8270$ee4f8750$@att.net> Message-ID: <2EEF2A8D-1C17-43EA-9833-E7EC26ED617F@gmail.com> On Mar 25, 2016, at 10:37 AM, spike wrote: > Does art imitate life or does life imitate art? BillK gives a good example of fiction defining reality. > > This meandering thread is a perfect illustration of why I hang out here after all these years: ExI Chat is a busy and fruitful idea factory. BillW tosses out a fragment of an obscure poem, we take it away, talking about advertisement, frogs, poetry, pretty much anything. Emily Dickenson would have fallen out of her chair laughing at where her work led us. What little I know about Dickinson makes me think she wouldn't have fallen off the chair laughing. In fact, one of her early champions, Colonel Higginson, found her quite insufferable to be around on their, if memory serves, one and only meeting. Of course, what I know about her comes from reading her poetry (maybe not the best way to tell anything about a person*) and what little biographical information has been provided on this shy, reclusive poet. > People here generally don't care who gets credit for the ideas; they just toss them into this imaginative information maelstrom and see what comes spinning out, spontaneous extropy. Thanks everyone here. You are delightful company. Well, that makes me feel quite bad for pointing out how Dickinson might not have been amused. ;) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst * That said, though art can be interpreted many ways, I'm of the mind done interpretations are better than others -- even if there's might be no final best interpretation. I still think Dickinson didn't mean the French in her poem. Yes, given the word 'frog,' one might jump to that association. (It's a little surprising given that 'frog' is a derogatory term in that context. That should be another clue: I know of no antipathy Dickinson had toward the French. Could be wrong about that; I'm not a Dickinson scholar.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Fri Mar 25 20:29:51 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 13:29:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame In-Reply-To: <2EEF2A8D-1C17-43EA-9833-E7EC26ED617F@gmail.com> References: <002c01d186a3$addcb950$09962bf0$@att.net> <92A04D60-9437-4B6F-AA67-491F8D9CEAE8@gmail.com> <00a101d186b4$2fd8aee0$8f8a0ca0$@att.net> <001501d186bc$fa1a8270$ee4f8750$@att.net> <2EEF2A8D-1C17-43EA-9833-E7EC26ED617F@gmail.com> Message-ID: <000001d186d5$1625d830$42718890$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan >? didn't mean the French in her poem. Yes, given the word 'frog,' one might jump to that association. (It's a little surprising given that 'frog' is a derogatory term in that context? Indeed? I had not heard that. I always assumed that associating a people with a favored unusual food was fair game. It isn?t racist in any way, it is a choice. What is the French equivalent of Yank? I don?t consider Yankee a derogatory term, and coming up with a favored food for USians is tricky. Hamburgers? Hot dogs? Doesn?t everyone eat those? We sometimes refer to the Brits as limeys, but I can imagine they would wear that one with pride because of where it originated. They don?t devour more limes than anyone else I don?t think. Every nationality needs a nickname of some sort, just to show they are good sports, ja? Foods seem safe to me. Still don?t have one for USians. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Fri Mar 25 20:55:40 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 13:55:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame In-Reply-To: <004601d186c8$8e1afe90$aa50fbb0$@att.net> References: <002c01d186a3$addcb950$09962bf0$@att.net> <92A04D60-9437-4B6F-AA67-491F8D9CEAE8@gmail.com> <00a101d186b4$2fd8aee0$8f8a0ca0$@att.net> <001501d186bc$fa1a8270$ee4f8750$@att.net> <004601d186c8$8e1afe90$aa50fbb0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 25, 2016 12:15 PM, "spike" wrote: > Ja. We have never frog otten how pun wars get started here. Just one typo in some cases, and it is a short hop to chaos. The whole discussion can metamorphose. One innocent comment anura merciless punster, oy vey. If you can't otherwise contribute to a discussion, sometimes you can pun on the fly. Just don't (lily) pad it too much. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Fri Mar 25 21:03:00 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 14:03:00 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame In-Reply-To: <000001d186d5$1625d830$42718890$@att.net> References: <002c01d186a3$addcb950$09962bf0$@att.net> <92A04D60-9437-4B6F-AA67-491F8D9CEAE8@gmail.com> <00a101d186b4$2fd8aee0$8f8a0ca0$@att.net> <001501d186bc$fa1a8270$ee4f8750$@att.net> <2EEF2A8D-1C17-43EA-9833-E7EC26ED617F@gmail.com> <000001d186d5$1625d830$42718890$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 25, 2016, at 1:29 PM, spike wrote: > >? didn't mean the French in her poem. Yes, given the word 'frog,' one might jump to that association. (It's a little surprising given that 'frog' is a derogatory term in that context? > > > Indeed? I had not heard that. I always assumed that associating a people with a favored unusual food was fair game. It isn?t racist in any way, it is a choice. What is the French equivalent of Yank? I don?t consider Yankee a derogatory term, and coming up with a favored food for USians is tricky. Hamburgers? Hot dogs? Doesn?t everyone eat those? We sometimes refer to the Brits as limeys, but I can imagine they would wear that one with pride because of where it originated. They don?t devour more limes than anyone else I don?t think. > > Every nationality needs a nickname of some sort, just to show they are good sports, ja? Foods seem safe to me. Still don?t have one for USians. That might be how you feel about these things, but it seems to me that the context the term arose in -- whether naming them after a good or after the way their symbol appeared -- was not meant as quaint or playful or just an easy substitute for another word, but as an insult. Of course, dysphemisms often lose their sting, which is why new ones tend to be generated, no? I'm not sure, by the way, is 'frog' has lost its sting, and I wouldn't use in most contexts. And, again, I don't believe Dickinson had that in mind. I certainly find it to be a hard to accept interpretation rereading the poem again. (Nothing terrible in misinterpreting anything either.) And I think she might be taken aback by that interpretation. This, again, is based on my reading about her. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Fri Mar 25 22:34:32 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 17:34:32 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame In-Reply-To: <2EEF2A8D-1C17-43EA-9833-E7EC26ED617F@gmail.com> References: <002c01d186a3$addcb950$09962bf0$@att.net> <92A04D60-9437-4B6F-AA67-491F8D9CEAE8@gmail.com> <00a101d186b4$2fd8aee0$8f8a0ca0$@att.net> <001501d186bc$fa1a8270$ee4f8750$@att.net> <2EEF2A8D-1C17-43EA-9833-E7EC26ED617F@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 at 2:55 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Mar 25, 2016, at 10:37 AM, spike wrote: > > Does art imitate life or does life imitate art? BillK gives a good > example of fiction defining reality. > > This meandering thread is a perfect illustration of why I hang out here > after all these years: ExI Chat is a busy and fruitful idea factory. > BillW tosses out a fragment of an obscure poem, we take it away, talking > about advertisement, frogs, poetry, pretty much anything. Emily Dickenson > would have fallen out of her chair laughing at where her work led us. > > > What little I know about Dickinson makes me think she wouldn't have fallen > off the chair laughing. In fact, one of her early champions, Colonel > Higginson, found her quite insufferable to be around on their, if memory > serves, one and only meeting. Of course, what I know about her comes from > reading her poetry (maybe not the best way to tell anything about a > person*) and what little biographical information has been provided on this > shy, reclusive poet. > > People here generally don't care who gets credit for the ideas; they just > toss them into this imaginative information maelstrom and see what comes > spinning out, spontaneous extropy. Thanks everyone here. You are > delightful company. > > > Well, that makes me feel quite bad for pointing out how Dickinson might > not have been amused. ;) > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books via: > http://author.to/DanUst > > * That said, though art can be interpreted many ways, I'm of the mind done > interpretations are better than others -- even if there's might be no final > best interpretation. I still think Dickinson didn't mean the French in her > poem. Yes, given the word 'frog,' one might jump to that association. (It's > a little surprising given that 'frog' is a derogatory term in that context. > That should be another clue: I know of no antipathy Dickinson had toward > the French. Could be wrong about that; I'm not a Dickinson scholar.) > ?and Spike finds another victim....? > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mar 25 22:49:56 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 15:49:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame In-Reply-To: References: <002c01d186a3$addcb950$09962bf0$@att.net> <92A04D60-9437-4B6F-AA67-491F8D9CEAE8@gmail.com> <00a101d186b4$2fd8aee0$8f8a0ca0$@att.net> <001501d186bc$fa1a8270$ee4f8750$@att.net> <2EEF2A8D-1C17-43EA-9833-E7EC26ED617F@gmail.com> <000001d186d5$1625d830$42718890$@att.net> Message-ID: <004b01d186e8$a7e607a0$f7b216e0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan ? >?And, again, I don't believe Dickinson had that in mind?And I think she might be taken aback by that interpretation. This, again, is based on my reading about her?Regards, Dan I am over my posting limit for the day. Do forgive please; I won?t make a habit of it. Dan I have a fun story for you. The day was 7 November 2000. We had been doing Ideas Futures (Robin Hanson?s play money version which predated the real-money versions of today.) We were learning all kinds of new statistical modeling from that, creating derivatives, all that cool stuff. We had a separate Ideas Futures chat group, many of whom came from ExI. As far as I know it was the only successful ExI-spinoff subgroup that persisted for more than a few weeks. That group was active for a coupla years as I recall, in the 1999-2001 timeframe. Ideas Futures always does well on elections: it is like a big political Super Bowl game, except there is a lot more money involved and people don?t care as much as they do about football. But the math geeks do, and we were creating statistical models for figuring out who would win the election on election day, perhaps with plenty of ?money? changing hands that day, for Ideas Futures never closed. You could bet on claims any time you wanted. I didn?t play the political memes, since I was doing the prime number predictions in those days and mopping up like a rabid janitor on amphetamines, but I watched. The Gore shares were selling for about 60 cents and gradually rising the week before election day. It was anyone?s game, but the media were generally predicting a Gore victory. Nate Silver had a website and a prediction model which showed that he could predict a winner based on early returns. I had been watching that one. The Silver-believers thought he could predict the outcome of the entire election by comparing early returns of 2000 with early returns in previous elections. Cool! 7 November Tuesday. My bride and I had tickets to a play in which Julie Harris was to do The Belle of Amherst, a one-woman play in which the actress would tell of her life, recite Dickenson poetry etc. I had been listening to the election results most of the afternoon; even Silver was still saying this election was a toss-up. On our way over to Palo Alto for the play, Silver and several other pundits realized that the election would most likely come down to the results in Florida. Living on the US west coast, I assumed it would be all over by the time the play was to start, because the polls would close in Florida. By the time we arrived at the theatre about 6pm it was closing time for the Florida polls and some of the news agencies were calling it for Mr. Gore, who had been leading in Florida all day. But Silver was reminding all that there are ten counties out in western Florida which are in the Central Time Zone, and the polls were still open there, and that CNN and these others couldn?t legitimately call this yet because out west Florida was Bush country. Nate Silver?s models all STILL were showing Florida as a tossup even as the polls closed in 95% of Florida. Silver himself got on one show and commented that his models showed the lead in that state had been and still was changing hands every few minutes, if you take into account the previous voting patterns. All this was going on right as the play was about to start, which was nerve-racking even for someone like me who could scarcely tell the difference between these two candidates. I suggested to my bride we skip the play and listen to the results of these last polls which were due in only 15 minutes. She insisted not; what will be will be, we paid a lotta money for these tickets, they don?t allow people go in late and yakkity yak and bla bla, so in we went, with Nate Silver telling the world this was still a tossup, which may have tipped the election. Reasoning: the news biggies were already calling Florida for Mr. Gore, which may have caused late voters in western Florida to give it up and go home. But Silver was reminding people the polls were still open in western Florida and that they might count. But FoxNews was the only station that I recall who didn?t call Florida by 9pm Eastern, and were broadcasting Silver?s comments. Well now, it could be that Bush voters are more likely to listen to FoxNews, so they would hear it was a close race, and might reconsider their decision to not vote, might turn around a second time, go back and vote. We don?t know. Perhaps the Gore voters in western Florida had no idea their votes would still count, so they went on home without voting, because the mainstream news biggies already announced their candidate had won Florida. On our way in, I noticed that plenty of the other play-goers were agitated. Perhaps they had been listening to the radio on the way in as well. I struggled to concentrate on this excellent play. There was a 15 minute intermission coming, so I made plans to dash out to my Detroit and find out who won at that time. However? during that play, during the first half, the man immediately behind me apparently had a stroke, for there was a bit of commotion, someone left as Harris recited her lines, the parameds came in a few minutes later, hauled this man out as limp as a dishrag, as the play went on uninterrupted. The second the intermission started, I bolted, ran out and saw them loading this man in the ambulance and drive off without a siren, which suggested to me he was gone. I went out, turned on my radio only to find they STILL didn?t know who won Florida but that a bunch of other polls had closed with the expected results, increasing Silver?s credibility and drawing attention to his prediction that it would all come down to Florida, as Mr. Bush was sweeping middle America as expected, and we already knew the west coast would go for Mr. Gore, and it was STILL a tossup in Florida even after the western Florida polls had closed. OK so? the future of American presidency was still a tossup, we had no way of knowing what would happen if there was a disputed outcome in Florida, a guy perished in the seat behind us. I told my bride I wasn?t in the mood for any more poetry. She agreed, we called a night at intermission. Robin?s carefully-designed Ideas Futures meme for that election had no provision for what happens if 8 November comes and we STILL don?t know who won. Those who were playing in those days may remember how that all played out. After that event, you will note that election-based Ideas Futures all have provisions for what happens in those once-in-a-nation?s-lifetime events like the 2000 election. This is my Emily Dickenson/Ideas Futures/ExI story for a Friday afternoon. Here is what I am looking for: if the statistics hipsters will be able to predict the outcome of the 2016 elections based on the first returns. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Fri Mar 25 23:06:44 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 23:06:44 +0000 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - on fame In-Reply-To: <004b01d186e8$a7e607a0$f7b216e0$@att.net> References: <002c01d186a3$addcb950$09962bf0$@att.net> <92A04D60-9437-4B6F-AA67-491F8D9CEAE8@gmail.com> <00a101d186b4$2fd8aee0$8f8a0ca0$@att.net> <001501d186bc$fa1a8270$ee4f8750$@att.net> <2EEF2A8D-1C17-43EA-9833-E7EC26ED617F@gmail.com> <000001d186d5$1625d830$42718890$@att.net> <004b01d186e8$a7e607a0$f7b216e0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 25 March 2016 at 22:49, spike wrote: > I am over my posting limit for the day. Do forgive please; I won?t make a > habit of it. > > Dan I have a fun story for you. > > Robin?s carefully-designed Ideas Futures meme for that election had no > provision for what happens if 8 November comes and we STILL don?t know who > won. Those who were playing in those days may remember how that all played > out. After that event, you will note that election-based Ideas Futures all > have provisions for what happens in those once-in-a-nation?s-lifetime events > like the 2000 election. > > This is my Emily Dickenson/Ideas Futures/ExI story for a Friday afternoon. > > Here is what I am looking for: if the statistics hipsters will be able to > predict the outcome of the 2016 elections based on the first returns. > Better not respond to this post till tomorrow. Spike is already over his daily posting limit and if he gets involved in an interesting discussion he will have to severely chastise himself. On the other hand......... :) BillK From johnkclark at gmail.com Fri Mar 25 23:34:21 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 19:34:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] sciam blog article In-Reply-To: <3311F050-F98D-4E43-9A44-BAF78BFB9C23@gmu.edu> References: <3311F050-F98D-4E43-9A44-BAF78BFB9C23@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Robin D Hanson wrote: ?> ? > You can code an awful lot of complexity into even 100MB of code, and if > that is non-modular spaghetti object code instead of modular documented > source code, it could take an awful long time to figure out. > ?Then it might be better to look for the master learning algorithm directly rather than trying to reverse engineer the biological brain; the recent successes in deep machine learning like AlphaGo ? makes me think we might not be too far from finding it.? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Sat Mar 26 00:06:56 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2016 20:06:56 -0400 Subject: [ExI] sciam blog article In-Reply-To: <3311F050-F98D-4E43-9A44-BAF78BFB9C23@gmu.edu> References: <3311F050-F98D-4E43-9A44-BAF78BFB9C23@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Robin D Hanson wrote: > > You can code an awful lot of complexity into even 100MB of code, and if > that is non-modular spaghetti object code instead of modular documented > source code, it could take an awful long time to figure out. > ### Some parts of the brain, such as the midbrain and structures inferior to it, are non-modular, spaghetti-like and hardwired in details - genetically determined and running on completely different principles from the cortex. The cortex and parts of the basal ganglia are however highly modular and most likely running a relatively uniform underlying algorithm that determines both short-term function and the longer-term processes, such as rewiring of the cortex. The amount of genetic information needed to shape the hardwired parts is most likely larger than the information that shapes the cortex, despite the latter's much larger size and immensely larger ability to learn. I think we can safely assume that most of any normal individual's cortex' complexity comes from the process of learning, rather than being genetically coded. I would expect that a compact description of AlphaGo's underlying algorithm is many times shorter than the description of that AI's final shape after playing millions of Go games. Thus we may have a close analogy between the learning brain and the most recent crop of AI designs. If so, then there is no magically complex master algorithm in the brain but rather a simpler genetically coded process underlying a huge amount of learned information in any individual mind. Contrary to what Horgan is trying to tell us, the biggest obstacle to uploading so far is not lack of knowledge about the master algorithm, but rather the lack of methods for collecting detailed synapse-by-synapse information on a whole-brain scale. Once we can scan the brain and record the physical features that determine individual synapse activity, the rest should be relatively smooth sailing. Of course, finding ways to abstract the informational structure of the mind from the physical structure of the brain will be non-trivial but I don't see why it shouldn't be possible. Horgan's article is silly. It's a grab-bag of stories aiming to shore up a fervent belief, not a scientific analysis of a problem. Rafa? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From bbenzai at yahoo.com Sat Mar 26 10:05:35 2016 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 10:05:35 +0000 Subject: [ExI] Loyalty schemes (was: Re: bitcoin used for nefarious purposes) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56F65EEF.6070008@yahoo.com> Adrian Tymes wrote > ("Loyalty programs? Repeat customer discounts? That's so much work. You > get here, buy your stuff, and get out. We stock stuff that's in > demand and > sell it to you. Easy, honest money.") That's also my perspective as a customer. So who benefits from these irksome schemes? Not me, the customer, not the business, but someone must. Who? Why do these schemes exist? Ben From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Mar 26 14:29:40 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 09:29:40 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - power Message-ID: "It is indeed always a puzzle to men, the physical passivity which women have the power of summoning up, to endure the inconvenience of an amorous excitement which they do not share. Few men realize the depth of the satisfaction to women's nature in the mere possession of the power to cause such excitement." John Cowper Powys - from A Glastonbury Romance bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Mar 26 15:27:21 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 08:27:21 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - power In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <006501d18773$fdfdc2f0$f9f948d0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 7:30 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - power "It is indeed always a puzzle to men, the physical passivity which women have the power of summoning up, to endure the inconvenience of an amorous excitement which they do not share. Few men realize the depth of the satisfaction to women's nature in the mere possession of the power to cause such excitement." John Cowper Powys - from A Glastonbury Romance bill w Ja, so true. I have a proposed solution for that BillW. Geordi La Forge from Star Trek TNG (no known relation to Stuart) was blind from birth but had a special visor which somehow detected what was out there and translated the signal to go past his nonfunctioning eyes and get to his brain, kind of a 1990s version of neurohacking. https://www.google.com/search?q=star+trek+tng+geordi+visor &biw=1066&bih=566&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiKr4COzt7LAhUW0GMKHQFBBO4Q_AUICCgD&dpr=1.25 Ok cool. We can imagine software in his visor having some kind of settings mode, where we could color reverse everything, like that upside down Everglades scene in 2001 A Space Odyssey for instance, or have a high setting, so everything looked the way it does to stoned people without spending the money on dope or alcohol. Still with me? Good. What I want is for some of you smart software guys who grok both genders to make for us a Geordi visor with a setting that takes any image, translates it into whatever women see when they look at that same scene. While we do that, I want a special pair of headphones which translates incoming sound into what women are hearing. Reasoning: I could experiment with the thing and learn to speak and do in such a way that the signal received would be the one I intended to transmit. If I knew what my bride sees and hears, then compare that to what I said and did, I could perhaps become a better husband. Oh that would be cool: I could find out what all the other colors look like, those weird ones which are none of the basic ten colors. Oh there is a tooooonnnn of money to be made. We could even make one for women, which translates scenes for them into what we boys see. Perhaps they would put on the visor and make comments such as ?Oh. Is THAT all you are seeing and hearing? No wonder.? With that, there would be no more excuses. We might have to retire the ?ist? suffix. We could make endless variations on the theme: translators for straight, gay, communist, capitalist, conservative, progressive, all the complex variations we have been introduced to. We could make them for religions and cultures. Everybody could see and hear the world through the eyes and ears of anyone else. Peace could break out. Defense companies would be ruined. OK bad idea, never mind, can?t have that. If I had that audio/visual translator, I could perhaps come to understand Powys? comment about having a devoted follower for which she cares little. I have seen that from the other side however: I have been the devoted follower of a cherished one who was indifferent to my feelings but who apparently enjoyed the inexplicable power she wielded. Perhaps most of us here have been in that situation, for it need not be gender-specific. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Sat Mar 26 16:07:12 2016 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 12:07:12 -0400 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - power In-Reply-To: <006501d18773$fdfdc2f0$f9f948d0$@att.net> References: <006501d18773$fdfdc2f0$f9f948d0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 26, 2016 11:42 AM, "spike" wrote: > What I want is for some of you smart software guys who grok both genders to make for us a Geordi visor with a setting that takes any image, translates it into whatever women see when they look at that same scene. While we do that, I want a special pair of headphones which translates incoming sound into what women are hearing. I suggest first realizing that women are not an alien species. I do agree that VR promises to make point of view more malleable. Given the parallel developments in read/write of memories in the brain, soon we may be capable of granting you a new perspective complete with the personal backstory for context to have that perspective make sense. I'm not sure that's exactly what you were looking for. I imagine there will be situations where "forced perspective" will be a violation of an individual's personal identity. That's going to be some crazy legal precedent. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Mar 26 16:30:25 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 09:30:25 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - power In-Reply-To: <006501d18773$fdfdc2f0$f9f948d0$@att.net> References: <006501d18773$fdfdc2f0$f9f948d0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 8:27 AM, spike wrote: > What I want is for some of you smart software guys who grok both genders > to make for us a Geordi visor with a setting that takes any image, > translates it into whatever women see when they look at that same scene. > While we do that, I want a special pair of headphones which translates > incoming sound into what women are hearing. > Most of that just doesn't translate into visual/audio signals. There is one major exception: assuming strict heterosexual (the majority case), just genderswap every human seen. Mostly-nude male pole dancers, pandering to an audience of leering women. A big, brawny woman chasing a lanky guy down an alley, tackling him, and then offscreen sounds of his pleas for her to stop. Mostly-female crime scene investigation squad finding what's left of him the next morning stuffed into a trash bin, and offhandedly commenting that it's yet another rape-murder as if that was nothing special. Supposedly, this kind of straight genderswap was a good part of how Neon Genesis Evangelion (to take one of the most famous blatant examples) got such high ratings. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sat Mar 26 16:49:04 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 09:49:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - power In-Reply-To: References: <006501d18773$fdfdc2f0$f9f948d0$@att.net> Message-ID: <002f01d1877f$68ae1310$3a0a3930$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Saturday, March 26, 2016 9:30 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] quote of the day - power On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 8:27 AM, spike > wrote: What I want is for some of you smart software guys who grok both genders to make for us a Geordi visor with a setting that takes any image, translates it into whatever women see when they look at that same scene. While we do that, I want a special pair of headphones which translates incoming sound into what women are hearing. >?Most of that just doesn't translate into visual/audio signals?There is one major exception: assuming strict heterosexual (the majority case), just genderswap every human seen. Mostly-nude male pole dancers, pandering to an audience of leering women? OK do explain this then Adrian. Imagine if you haven?t ever seen it, a pole dancer of the usual gender (female.) Now do the same with the Chippendale?s show with male strippers. I haven?t attended the latter, but I have the former. Those two shows are received far differently, and it is most puzzling. The men at the pole dancer show look up occasionally, stuff bills in the performers? few remaining garments, but are mostly indifferent. There you see guys talking to each other about sports (the kind that involves cars and orbs, discussions that have nothing to do with what is happening on the stage.) In stark contrast, the female audience of a male stripper show and cheering wildly and carrying on (as depicted in Hollywood movies, I don?t actually know if it works that way IRL or if it is a Hollywood gross exaggeration (anyone here know?)) The ladies are engaged, participating. So why the difference? If the entire audience put on the gender-switch visors, then the female audience watched a female performer, and the male audience watched the Chippendale?s, how would each act? Why? Such a puzzling asymmetry, I don?t understand it. Then what if? we had gender-swapping visors and we gave them to people who had been raised in cultures where women?s feelings and women?s ideas were disregarded? What would that be like? Or what if you could make the visors culture-swapping or religion-swapping? The next thing I will suggest follows logically: we don?t yet have gender-swapping or culture-swapping visors, but we have literature. We take our best guess at how to explain to someone from another viewpoint what it feels like in here in our minds. We know it doesn?t work all that well. I know I am edging dangerously close to a fruitless qualia discussion, oy vey. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sat Mar 26 17:06:38 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 12:06:38 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - power In-Reply-To: References: <006501d18773$fdfdc2f0$f9f948d0$@att.net> Message-ID: Mostly-nude male pole dancers, pandering to an audience of leering women. j Adrian What happens in strip shows: men sit silently and watch; women (according to a friend) scream and yell and giggle and throw things. (oh well, Spike beat me to the punch on this one) In my never-to-be-finished book: gengineering - women will demand and get equal strength. Will surely help in some cases. Maybe women will feel quite differently then. Margaret Meed said that if wars were fought by women the species would be extinct because women would take no prisoners and kill everyone on the other side. I don't know if adult women are that vicious, but I do know that the prisons are filled with women who are high in testosterone. If women in the future want equal hormones, watch out!! bill w On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 11:30 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 8:27 AM, spike wrote: > >> What I want is for some of you smart software guys who grok both genders >> to make for us a Geordi visor with a setting that takes any image, >> translates it into whatever women see when they look at that same scene. >> While we do that, I want a special pair of headphones which translates >> incoming sound into what women are hearing. >> > > Most of that just doesn't translate into visual/audio signals. > > There is one major exception: assuming strict heterosexual (the majority > case), just genderswap every human seen. Mostly-nude male pole dancers, > pandering to an audience of leering women. A big, brawny woman chasing a > lanky guy down an alley, tackling him, and then offscreen sounds of his > pleas for her to stop. Mostly-female crime scene investigation squad > finding what's left of him the next morning stuffed into a trash bin, and > offhandedly commenting that it's yet another rape-murder as if that was > nothing special. > > Supposedly, this kind of straight genderswap was a good part of how Neon > Genesis Evangelion (to take one of the most famous blatant examples) got > such high ratings. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Mar 26 17:44:29 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 10:44:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - power In-Reply-To: <002f01d1877f$68ae1310$3a0a3930$@att.net> References: <006501d18773$fdfdc2f0$f9f948d0$@att.net> <002f01d1877f$68ae1310$3a0a3930$@att.net> Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 9:49 AM, spike wrote: > OK do explain this then Adrian. Imagine if you haven?t ever seen it, a > pole dancer of the usual gender (female.) Now do the same with the > Chippendale?s show with male strippers. I haven?t attended the latter, but > I have the former. Those two shows are received far differently, and it is > most puzzling. The men at the pole dancer show look up occasionally, stuff > bills in the performers? few remaining garments, but are mostly > indifferent. There you see guys talking to each other about sports (the > kind that involves cars and orbs, discussions that have nothing to do with > what is happening on the stage.) > > In stark contrast, the female audience of a male stripper show and > cheering wildly and carrying on (as depicted in Hollywood movies, I don?t > actually know if it works that way IRL or if it is a Hollywood gross > exaggeration (anyone here know?)) The ladies are engaged, participating. > Yeah, no. I said genderswap, I meant straight genderswap. Female strippers at Chippendale's. Women looking up occasionally at male pole dancers. You wanted them to see each other's perspective... > Then what if? we had gender-swapping visors and we gave them to people who > had been raised in cultures where women?s feelings and women?s ideas were > disregarded? What would that be like? > "Mind blowing" seems the most likely description. Many would undoubtedly reject the "obviously preposterous and impossible" adjusted vision, several to the degree of violently objecting to others seeing it (because they feel threatened)...but for many others, this would be their first serious exposure to the concept of considering the other gender as equals, and they might then consider it. Hard to say which camp would have more. The next thing I will suggest follows logically: we don?t yet have > gender-swapping or culture-swapping visors, but we have literature. We > take our best guess at how to explain to someone from another viewpoint > what it feels like in here in our minds. We know it doesn?t work all that > well. > It is entirely possible to do a visual representation of this, no goggles necessary. Done well, it can even be profitable, the genderswap being one of the hooks. (Of course, you'd have to otherwise be able to develop and market the particular media you choose - just, this can help.) -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Sat Mar 26 17:54:27 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 10:54:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Loyalty schemes (was: Re: bitcoin used for nefarious purposes) In-Reply-To: <56F65EEF.6070008@yahoo.com> References: <56F65EEF.6070008@yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 3:05 AM, Ben wrote: > Adrian Tymes wrote > >> ("Loyalty programs? Repeat customer discounts? That's so much work. You >> get here, buy your stuff, and get out. We stock stuff that's in demand >> and >> sell it to you. Easy, honest money.") >> > > That's also my perspective as a customer. So who benefits from these > irksome schemes? Not me, the customer, not the business, but someone must. > Who? Why do these schemes exist? > The business actually does...in theory. If I sell at $10 something that costs me $8, but I can get you to buy three of them for $9 instead of just one, I have made $3 instead of $2. Alternately, if I give you a tenth one for free after you've bought nine at $10, when you would otherwise have bought maybe two, I get $10 profit instead of $4, and you get the satisfaction of having "earned" "free" stuff (notice the quotes: some people really do get that joy even if what actually happened isn't that). If you buy these on separate visits, maybe once a week, that doesn't change the end result. But this requires accounting and marketing. Some people who own businesses are too lazy (or busy with other concerns) for that. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sat Mar 26 20:28:08 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 16:28:08 -0400 Subject: [ExI] sciam blog article In-Reply-To: References: <3311F050-F98D-4E43-9A44-BAF78BFB9C23@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On Fri, Mar 25, 2016 Rafal Smigrodzki wrote: ?> ? > I would expect that a compact description of AlphaGo's underlying > algorithm is many times shorter than the description of that AI's final > shape after playing millions of Go games. > I would expect the same thing, ? and I would expect that the difference in ?c? complexity between a humble mediocre master learning algorithm and an ?a? astounding genius level ? master learning algorithm ? to be quite small. There are only about ? 35 million DNA base pairs ? that differ between the genome of a chimpanzee and the genome of a human; ? 2 bits ? per base pair and ? 8 bits per byte so ? there is ?less than 9? ? meg ? difference between the two species. And all that ?9? meg can't be used for just the improved master learning algorithm, I believe there may be some physical differences between humans and chimps too. I remember ? that a little before ? the turn of the century I bought a fancy mouse for my computer ? that had ? a lot of new exotic features like a scroll wheel, but before my computer could understand the signals from my high tech mouse I had to ?i? install some new software, and at the time it seemed ? like a ? huge ? program, it was about one meg. The human master learning algorithm might not be much larger. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Mar 27 01:10:29 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 20:10:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - power In-Reply-To: References: <006501d18773$fdfdc2f0$f9f948d0$@att.net> <002f01d1877f$68ae1310$3a0a3930$@att.net> Message-ID: What I want is for some of you smart software guys who grok both genders to make for us a Geordi visor with a setting that takes any image, translates it into whatever women see when they look at that same scene. While we do that, I want a special pair of headphones which translates incoming sound into what women are hearing. Spike I think I am missing something here. You cannot mean a literal translation of the visual or auditory field - which should be identical. You want to experience the *interpretation *of the field. The attitudes and so on, right? Beautiful, ugly, boring, etc. Of course those would be individual-specific, not gender-specific. Or am I missing something? Here's one thing my hearing aid guy said: I told him to put on my aid and listen to the background noise so he could fix it. He said no one would experience the same thing when listening to my aid. The literal sound, not any interpretation. I know nothing about this phenomenon. Y'all? bill w On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 12:44 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 9:49 AM, spike wrote: > >> OK do explain this then Adrian. Imagine if you haven?t ever seen it, a >> pole dancer of the usual gender (female.) Now do the same with the >> Chippendale?s show with male strippers. I haven?t attended the latter, but >> I have the former. Those two shows are received far differently, and it is >> most puzzling. The men at the pole dancer show look up occasionally, stuff >> bills in the performers? few remaining garments, but are mostly >> indifferent. There you see guys talking to each other about sports (the >> kind that involves cars and orbs, discussions that have nothing to do with >> what is happening on the stage.) >> >> In stark contrast, the female audience of a male stripper show and >> cheering wildly and carrying on (as depicted in Hollywood movies, I don?t >> actually know if it works that way IRL or if it is a Hollywood gross >> exaggeration (anyone here know?)) The ladies are engaged, participating. >> > > Yeah, no. I said genderswap, I meant straight genderswap. Female > strippers at Chippendale's. Women looking up occasionally at male pole > dancers. You wanted them to see each other's perspective... > >> Then what if? we had gender-swapping visors and we gave them to people >> who had been raised in cultures where women?s feelings and women?s ideas >> were disregarded? What would that be like? >> > > "Mind blowing" seems the most likely description. Many would undoubtedly > reject the "obviously preposterous and impossible" adjusted vision, several > to the degree of violently objecting to others seeing it (because they feel > threatened)...but for many others, this would be their first serious > exposure to the concept of considering the other gender as equals, and they > might then consider it. Hard to say which camp would have more. > > The next thing I will suggest follows logically: we don?t yet have >> gender-swapping or culture-swapping visors, but we have literature. We >> take our best guess at how to explain to someone from another viewpoint >> what it feels like in here in our minds. We know it doesn?t work all that >> well. >> > > It is entirely possible to do a visual representation of this, no goggles > necessary. Done well, it can even be profitable, the genderswap being one > of the hooks. (Of course, you'd have to otherwise be able to develop and > market the particular media you choose - just, this can help.) > > _______________________________________________ > 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 mail at harveynewstrom.com Sun Mar 27 02:05:16 2016 From: mail at harveynewstrom.com (Harvey Newstrom) Date: Sat, 26 Mar 2016 22:05:16 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Loyalty schemes (was: Re: bitcoin used for nefarious purposes) In-Reply-To: <56F65EEF.6070008@yahoo.com> References: <56F65EEF.6070008@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <003701d187cd$1b9dd8f0$52d98ad0$@harveynewstrom.com> On Saturday, March 26, 2016 6:06 AM, Ben wrote: > That's also my perspective as a customer. So who benefits from these > irksome schemes? Not me, the customer, not the business, but someone > must. Who? Why do these schemes exist? Loyalty schemes require you to identify yourself with your purchase. That allows companies to profile you and your buying habits to sell your data to advertisers and other companies. The stores make more money selling your personal information than the discounts they give you. This was included in my 2001 talk at Extro-5, "Privacy Today: The Battle for Your Online Identity." The topic was pretty controversial back then. Nobody believed that corporations would track consumers or that government would track citizens. -- Harvey Newstrom www.HarveyNewstrom.com From anders at aleph.se Sun Mar 27 02:36:30 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 03:36:30 +0100 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - power In-Reply-To: References: <006501d18773$fdfdc2f0$f9f948d0$@att.net> <002f01d1877f$68ae1310$3a0a3930$@att.net> Message-ID: <56F7472E.3060202@aleph.se> On 2016-03-27 02:10, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > I think I am missing something here. You cannot mean a literal > translation of the visual or auditory field - which should be > identical. You want to experience the /interpretation /of the > field. The attitudes and so on, right? Beautiful, ugly, boring, > etc. Of course those would be individual-specific, not > gender-specific. > Actually, that suggests an interesting augmented reality app. Imagine running a computer vision system identifying things (we are getting there for realtime captioning, https://vimeo.com/146492001, it is not hard to imagine this working quite well in one or two years). These things are run through a word meaning API (like https://www.wordsapi.com or www.wordnik.com) that gives a first order interpretation. Now, the really interesting thing is that we can do word association mining online or elsewhere to get associations and sentiment - when you see something it could be surrounded with associated attributes. If the associations are mined from particular communities or experiences, then it might actually give more sense of the interpretation of the field. A dollar bill will have rather different halos when seen from a marxist, rapper, poor, or libertarian context. (I got the idea from this webcomic strip, http://www.sinfest.net/view.php?date=2011-10-09 ) In practice this requires some not-quite-here yet tech to interpret social roles and actions that I think current deep learning is still bad at, but for concrete objects it shoud work. It actually sounds like a project the MIT Media Lab or some similar institution might do just for coolness. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Sun Mar 27 03:18:57 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 04:18:57 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Loyalty schemes In-Reply-To: <003701d187cd$1b9dd8f0$52d98ad0$@harveynewstrom.com> References: <56F65EEF.6070008@yahoo.com> <003701d187cd$1b9dd8f0$52d98ad0$@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: <56F75121.6020108@aleph.se> On 2016-03-27 03:05, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > This was included in my 2001 talk at Extro-5, "Privacy Today: The > Battle for Your Online Identity." The topic was pretty controversial > back then. Nobody believed that corporations would track consumers or > that government would track citizens. Yeah, you were pretty ahead of the curve. So, what are you looking at today? One related area of interest is identity ecosystems. Being the controller/adjudicator of online identities seems to be pretty profitable/powerful. Twitter's real value might be in acting as a sign-in system, not so much the other functions. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From rhanson at gmu.edu Sun Mar 27 03:32:13 2016 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin D Hanson) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 03:32:13 +0000 Subject: [ExI] sciam blog article In-Reply-To: References: <3311F050-F98D-4E43-9A44-BAF78BFB9C23@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On Mar 26, 2016, at 1:34 AM, John Clark > wrote: On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Robin D Hanson > wrote: ?> ? You can code an awful lot of complexity into even 100MB of code, and if that is non-modular spaghetti object code instead of modular documented source code, it could take an awful long time to figure out. ?Then it might be better to look for the master learning algorithm directly rather than trying to reverse engineer the biological brain; the recent successes in deep machine learning like AlphaGo ? makes me think we might not be too far from finding it.? Even if there were a single ?master? learning algorithm, instead of many more context dependent learning algorithms, there can still be many other relevant design choices, including choices of representations. On Mar 26, 2016, at 2:06 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: ### Some parts of the brain, such as the midbrain and structures inferior to it, are non-modular, spaghetti-like and hardwired in details - genetically determined and running on completely different principles from the cortex. The cortex and parts of the basal ganglia are however highly modular and most likely running a relatively uniform underlying algorithm that determines both short-term function and the longer-term processes, such as rewiring of the cortex. Yes, some parts may be simple, and even occupy a large fraction of the brain. Even so other parts may no be, and even if they occupy a small fraction of the brain, it may take a long time to figure out how to create systems that substitute effectively for them. I discuss this more at: https://www.overcomingbias.com/2016/03/how-good-99-brains.html 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 protokol2020 at gmail.com Sun Mar 27 13:39:58 2016 From: protokol2020 at gmail.com (Tomaz Kristan) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 15:39:58 +0200 Subject: [ExI] sciam blog article In-Reply-To: References: <3311F050-F98D-4E43-9A44-BAF78BFB9C23@gmu.edu> Message-ID: > Yes, some parts may be simple, and even occupy a large fraction of the brain. Even so other parts may no be Or may be simple enough as well. No ireducible complexity, at least. On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 5:32 AM, Robin D Hanson wrote: > On Mar 26, 2016, at 1:34 AM, John Clark wrote: > > On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 1:03 AM, Robin D Hanson wrote: > > ?> ? >> You can code an awful lot of complexity into even 100MB of code, and if >> that is non-modular spaghetti object code instead of modular documented >> source code, it could take an awful long time to figure out. >> > > ?Then it might be better to look for the master learning algorithm > directly rather than trying to reverse engineer the biological brain; the > recent successes in deep machine learning like > AlphaGo > ? makes me think we might not be too far from finding it.? > > > Even if there were a single ?master? learning algorithm, instead of many > more context dependent learning algorithms, there can still be many other > relevant design choices, including choices of representations. > > On Mar 26, 2016, at 2:06 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: > > ### Some parts of the brain, such as the midbrain and structures inferior > to it, are non-modular, spaghetti-like and hardwired in details - > genetically determined and running on completely different principles from > the cortex. The cortex and parts of the basal ganglia are however highly > modular and most likely running a relatively uniform underlying algorithm > that determines both short-term function and the longer-term processes, > such as rewiring of the cortex. > > > Yes, some parts may be simple, and even occupy a large fraction of the > brain. Even so other parts may no be, and even if they occupy a small > fraction of the brain, it may take a long time to figure out how to create > systems that substitute effectively for them. I discuss this more at: > https://www.overcomingbias.com/2016/03/how-good-99-brains.html > > 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 > > -- https://protokol2020.wordpress.com/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Mar 27 14:31:25 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 09:31:25 -0500 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - life Message-ID: Life is like a crossword puzzle: a lot of the clues are ambiguous. Me. (maybe what y'all can do with this one is to do your own: "life is like........") I would add: 'intentionally ambiguous" (like 'will she or won't she' - answer: "yes, she will, but probably not with you") bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Sun Mar 27 14:55:35 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 10:55:35 -0400 Subject: [ExI] sciam blog article In-Reply-To: References: <3311F050-F98D-4E43-9A44-BAF78BFB9C23@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Robin D Hanson wrote: ? >> ?>> ? >> it might be better to look for the master learning algorithm directly >> rather than trying to reverse engineer the biological brain; the recent >> successes in deep machine learning like >> ? ? >> AlphaGo >> ? makes me think we might not be too far from finding it.? >> > > > ?> ? > Even if there were a single ?master? learning algorithm, instead of many > more context dependent learning algorithms, there can still be many other > relevant design choices, including choices of representations. > ?Regardless of how things are represented and regardless of whether there is one big algorithm or several smaller algorithms, when you add up all the differences between chimpanzee level ability and human level ability genomics tells us that number has GOT to be less than 9 meg, and probably a lot less. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Sun Mar 27 15:03:24 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 10:03:24 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Loyalty schemes (was: Re: bitcoin used for nefarious purposes) In-Reply-To: <003701d187cd$1b9dd8f0$52d98ad0$@harveynewstrom.com> References: <56F65EEF.6070008@yahoo.com> <003701d187cd$1b9dd8f0$52d98ad0$@harveynewstrom.com> Message-ID: Nobody believed that corporations would track consumers or that government would track citizens. Harvey I don't mind at all. Amazon knows all about me because I buy tons of stuff from them. So when I buy or just look around they give me suggestions based on what I've already bought. I cannot count the times I've bought some book or something because of that. I think this is a great benefit. I don't know what that engine is called - the one that makes suggestions - but I love it. Of course I don't like getting spam or robocalls and so I shut those off as best I can. Smailmail, however, is fine. Subscribe to Organic Gardening and you will get everything related in your mailbox next week. Fine. I'll read their offers and, mostly, dump them in the trash. I have opted out of credit card offers (no debt), but have used them in the past. I have even called 800 numbers asking them to stop sending me stuff. So for me, knowing what I have bought and sending me offers has worked out just fine for me. bill w On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 9:05 PM, Harvey Newstrom wrote: > On Saturday, March 26, 2016 6:06 AM, Ben wrote: > > That's also my perspective as a customer. So who benefits from these > > irksome schemes? Not me, the customer, not the business, but someone > > must. Who? Why do these schemes exist? > > Loyalty schemes require you to identify yourself with your purchase. That > allows companies to profile you and your buying habits to sell your data to > advertisers and other companies. The stores make more money selling your > personal information than the discounts they give you. > > This was included in my 2001 talk at Extro-5, "Privacy Today: The Battle > for > Your Online Identity." The topic was pretty controversial back then. > Nobody believed that corporations would track consumers or that government > would track citizens. > > -- > Harvey Newstrom www.HarveyNewstrom.com > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Sun Mar 27 15:41:04 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 08:41:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - life In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <008a01d1883f$1319f340$394dd9c0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Sunday, March 27, 2016 7:31 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - life Life is like a crossword puzzle: a lot of the clues are ambiguous. Me?bill w Nah, all crosswords are easy, once you learn an innovative technique: stacking letters on top of each other. I think of it as 3D crosswords. It is an ancient Chinese thing: their alphabet started with characters that made sense, but then they saved paper by stacking the characters on top of each other, starting with crossword puzzles. Another technique is to let your longer words hang off the end of the puzzle. That way it is more organic in the way it spreads, rather than those boring square boundaries. The picky uptight types claim that is against the rules, but organic 3D crosswords are much easier to solve, and you get to invent bold new characters in your alphabet, not even found on our keyboards. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 00:09:24 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 20:09:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Gunfight at the OK Convention Message-ID: Republicans now want to allow people to carry firearms when they meet in Cleveland in July for their convention to nominate Donald Trump as their presidential candidate. Thousands of irrational people who hate each others guts jammed into one small hot auditorium each armed with a 44 Magnum revolver strapped to his waist and claiming to have a larger dick and a better looking wife than anybody else; what could possibly go wrong? http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/03/27/donald-trump-ted-cruz-john-kasich-guns-open-carry-cleveland-convention-republicans/82321374/ John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 00:37:55 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Sun, 27 Mar 2016 19:37:55 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Gunfight at the OK Convention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 7:09 PM, John Clark wrote: > Republicans now want to allow people to carry firearms when they meet in > Cleveland in July for their convention to nominate Donald Trump as their > presidential candidate. Thousands of irrational people who hate each others > guts jammed into one small hot auditorium each armed with a 44 Magnum > revolver strapped to his waist and claiming to have a larger dick and a > better looking wife than anybody else; what could possibly go wrong? > > > http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/03/27/donald-trump-ted-cruz-john-kasich-guns-open-carry-cleveland-convention-republicans/82321374/ > > > John K Clark > ? ?Why John, this seems to me to be totally normal behavior for the current slate of Repubs. Do you think this is somewhat unusual? ? ??Cowboys are all Repubs, aren't they? Or at least the wannabes. Highly predictable, I'd say. Scream at the top of your voice and carry the biggest stick, ride in a Humvee. Will Trump be the first comb-over president? Combing over not just his bald spots but his earlier political positions? I personally experienced Earl Long and George Wallace (early rabble rousers and demagogues for those of you overseas). (Earl won the entertainment value contest hams down - showed up on a flat bed truck, wearing one of those old man T shirts, sweating and drinking from a pint bottle and giving away hams and tubs of lard "Give a ham to the nigger lady in the back" while a country music band played. And he won. Easily. For US Rep central LA. Died two weeks later - heart.) Democrats in those days, of course. 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 anders at aleph.se Mon Mar 28 08:20:00 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 09:20:00 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Gunfight at the OK Convention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56F8E930.9050909@aleph.se> I got the impression the petition was actually started by a bunch of democrat gadflies. But the joke is a pretty good one. Whenever I encounter someone being irrationally optimistic about the politeness and peacemaking properties of guns I suggest that this is why we ought to arm prisoners. Still, we ought to get away from the dreaded g*ns topic (we had a ban on it on this list for many years, given the fierce positions some people took). A better question is: how would we construct respectful, intelligent foras for discussing policy and how to stabilie them? I am not asking how to make current systems work, just what it takes to make a forum work well. Once we know that we might conspire to make them common. On 2016-03-28 01:37, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > > On Sun, Mar 27, 2016 at 7:09 PM, John Clark > wrote: > > Republicans now want to allow people to carry firearms when they > meet in Cleveland in July for their convention to nominate Donald > Trump as their presidential candidate. Thousands of irrational > people who hate each others guts jammed into one small hot > auditorium each armed with a 44 Magnum revolver strapped to his > waist and claiming to have a larger dick and a better looking wife > than anybody else; what could possibly go wrong? > > http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/03/27/donald-trump-ted-cruz-john-kasich-guns-open-carry-cleveland-convention-republicans/82321374/ > > > John K Clark > > ? > > ?Why John, this seems to me to be totally normal behavior for the > current slate of Repubs. Do you think this is somewhat unusual? ? > ?? Cowboys are all Repubs, aren't they? Or at least the wannabes. > Highly predictable, I'd say. Scream at the top of your voice and > carry the biggest stick, ride in a Humvee. Will Trump be the first > comb-over president? Combing over not just his bald spots but his > earlier political positions? > > I personally experienced Earl Long and George Wallace (early rabble > rousers and demagogues for those of you overseas). (Earl won the > entertainment value contest hams down - showed up on a flat bed truck, > wearing one of those old man T shirts, sweating and drinking from a > pint bottle and giving away hams and tubs of lard "Give a ham to the > nigger lady in the back" while a country music band played. And he > won. Easily. For US Rep central LA. Died two weeks later - heart.) > Democrats in those days, of course. > > 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 -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From steinberg.will at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 13:55:38 2016 From: steinberg.will at gmail.com (Will Steinberg) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 09:55:38 -0400 Subject: [ExI] quote of the day - life In-Reply-To: <008a01d1883f$1319f340$394dd9c0$@att.net> References: <008a01d1883f$1319f340$394dd9c0$@att.net> Message-ID: Life is like a recursive formula, you can't understand it without first understanding the statement "Life is like a recursive formula, you can't understand it without first understanding..." -W On Mar 27, 2016 11:56 AM, "spike" wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Sunday, March 27, 2016 7:31 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* [ExI] quote of the day - life > > > > Life is like a crossword puzzle: a lot of the clues are ambiguous. Me?bill > w > > > > > > Nah, all crosswords are easy, once you learn an innovative technique: > stacking letters on top of each other. I think of it as 3D crosswords. It > is an ancient Chinese thing: their alphabet started with characters that > made sense, but then they saved paper by stacking the characters on top of > each other, starting with crossword puzzles. > > > > Another technique is to let your longer words hang off the end of the > puzzle. That way it is more organic in the way it spreads, rather than > those boring square boundaries. > > > > The picky uptight types claim that is against the rules, but organic 3D > crosswords are much easier to solve, and you get to invent bold new > characters in your alphabet, not even found on our keyboards. > > > > 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 Mon Mar 28 13:50:29 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 06:50:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Gunfight at the OK Convention In-Reply-To: <56F8E930.9050909@aleph.se> References: <56F8E930.9050909@aleph.se> Message-ID: <003501d188f8$caaf0630$600d1290$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg Subject: Re: [ExI] Gunfight at the OK Convention >?I got the impression the petition was actually started by a bunch of democrat gadflies. But the joke is a pretty good one. Whenever I encounter someone being irrationally optimistic about the politeness and peacemaking properties of guns I suggest that this is why we ought to arm prisoners?.Still, we ought to get away from the dreaded g*ns topic (we had a ban on it on this list for many years, given the fierce positions some people took). ? Anders we have apparently changed. Last several times the topic has come up, the ExI crowd handled it with respect and care. We haven?t really had a flame war here since those days, so far back in the mirror now I don?t even recall when it was. 2000? As I wrote the previous line, I realized something else: my other lists don?t have flame wars anymore either. The internet activist community has grown up. It has become a kinder, gentler place. Spontaneous order? Persistent negative feedback for flamers? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 14:10:17 2016 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 10:10:17 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Gunfight at the OK Convention In-Reply-To: <003501d188f8$caaf0630$600d1290$@att.net> References: <56F8E930.9050909@aleph.se> <003501d188f8$caaf0630$600d1290$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 28, 2016 10:04 AM, "spike" wrote: >> As I wrote the previous line, I realized something else: my other lists don?t have flame wars anymore either. The internet activist community has grown up. It has become a kinder, gentler place. Spontaneous order? Persistent negative feedback for flamers? > Perhaps the reason is that newer forums and twitter offer the angry a more immediate response than waiting a day between attacks for victims to respond. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Mar 28 14:22:23 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 07:22:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Bulk] Re: Gunfight at the OK Convention In-Reply-To: References: <56F8E930.9050909@aleph.se> <003501d188f8$caaf0630$600d1290$@att.net> Message-ID: <006801d188fd$3f6e9450$be4bbcf0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Mike Dougherty Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 7:10 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: [Bulk] Re: [ExI] Gunfight at the OK Convention On Mar 28, 2016 10:04 AM, "spike" > wrote: >> As I wrote the previous line, I realized something else: my other lists don?t have flame wars anymore either. The internet activist community has grown up. It has become a kinder, gentler place. Spontaneous order? Persistent negative feedback for flamers? > >?Perhaps the reason is that newer forums and twitter offer the angry a more immediate response than waiting a day between attacks for victims to respond? Perhaps I could add support to that notion, even if not rigorous proof. As I recall, the worst flame wars in ExI were real-timey. There could be dozens of one-line posts in an hour. The unofficial five posts a day limit caused people to think over their responses and put some effort into their writing. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 15:09:11 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 08:09:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Gunfight at the OK Convention In-Reply-To: <56F8E930.9050909@aleph.se> References: <56F8E930.9050909@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Mar 28, 2016 1:21 AM, "Anders Sandberg" wrote: > I got the impression the petition was actually started by a bunch of democrat gadflies. But the joke is a pretty good one. Whenever I encounter someone being irrationally optimistic about the politeness and peacemaking properties of guns I suggest that this is why we ought to arm prisoners. Taking it from Spike's posts that the topic is not banned... I'm trying to think through how this would actually work. Even at their angriest, they would remember the guns are deadly force and so wouldn't fire on anyone they don't think is about to fire on them, right? So to get something like a bar fight with guns going, it seems like first you would need to physically separate the groups (which may naturally happen) so they have clear targets instead of not knowing who near them is on what side, and then you would need to light fireworks or something to confuse the groups into thinking they're being shot at. It doesn't seem that hard to do (and perhaps to get away with: putting tape-covered small objects here and there, walking a safe distance away once that's done and the groups gel out, detonating the fireworks via remote, and then escaping with everyone else fleeing the scene), but I wonder if anyone would go to such lengths to sabotage the GOP convention. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Mar 28 16:28:29 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 09:28:29 -0700 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... Message-ID: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> In response to an offlist comment by one of our long-time smart guys, I wrote this: {. stuff deleted.} Note that there has been a shift from scholarly papers to shorter and less-formal scientific and engineering society papers, to internet group posts to realtime chat to whatever the young hipsters use a lot now: tweets? Note that the time and thought invested in creating those communications decreases steadily with each of those steps. The time and thought invested on the receiving end decreases too. Recall back when we used to study an article or a book and talk about it a lot for weeks or months? Some professional society papers had enormous impact, and the others in that field kept a copy and spent hours studying it. In the peak of internet groups, we had occasional posts or threads which got a lot of attention. Note Scientific American articles from the 1960s. Compare to Scientific American articles today. It isn't a criticism of the magazine. Try it: go look at those old time articles and note that it is damn hard to maintain concentration on the topic necessary to get thru those today. Note that we now have a constant awareness of the opportunity costs associated with investing a few hours in studying a fifty-year-old Scientific American article. Science is faster now. But what is the counterpart to that in tweets? I really don't know, for I do not tweet. It just sounds too undignified. Furthermore, I really cannot express my thoughts in 37 characters or less (or whatever the absurd limit is. I can't do it! I am too not hip. I really mean it: I just can't express myself in haiku-length posts. But hey, I am an open minded sort, so I propose an experiment. Today and tomorrow, let us suspend the usual posting limit for a purpose, to make a point. Write in the cramped space allowed by twitter. (What is it please young hipsters?) Haiku is fine, whatever you want, but keep it to the twitter length limit. Let us try to discuss philosophy, science, tech, the usual ExI banter in tweets. Note: back in the old days, we used to discourage one-line responses, for it encouraged posts with too-little thought. Now we are temporarily encouraging it to see what we get as we suffer collective reduction of attention span. Today and tomorrow, post away on this topic, within the twitter character limit, no restrictions. If you quote previous tweets, that doesn't count against your limit; only your response needs to be limited in length. The usual twitter abbreviations and murder of traditional spellings R L-owd, N-K-raged even. R U hip? spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 17:00:22 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:00:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:28 PM, spike wrote: > I really don't know, for I do not tweet. It just sounds too undignified. > Furthermore, I really cannot express my thoughts in 37 characters or less > (or whatever the absurd limit is. I can't do it! I am too not hip. I > really mean it: I just can't express myself in haiku-length posts. > One tweet doesn't necessarily have to contain an entire thought. Many thoughts are expressed in multiple tweets or a tweet with a short description and a URL. I rarely tweet but I follow lots of Twitter accounts for various kinds of announcements. The limit of a tweet is 140 characters but photos can be included, too. On Twitter, each of the above lines would be a separate tweet. -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Mar 28 16:56:19 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 09:56:19 -0700 Subject: [ExI] decreased investment in individual memes Message-ID: <007801d18912$c0b8fae0$422af0a0$@att.net> I L start. Cool, check this: http://news.discovery.com/tech/robotics/realistic-robot-lady-cheerfully-agrees-to-destroy-humans-160322.htm?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_954181 We R doomed. O 8, I M not, U R. spike From spike66 at att.net Mon Mar 28 17:05:43 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 10:05:43 -0700 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> Message-ID: <009a01d18914$1093d4d0$31bb7e70$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dave Sill Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 10:00 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:28 PM, spike > wrote: I really don't know, for I do not tweet. It just sounds too undignified. Furthermore, I really cannot express my thoughts in 37 characters or less (or whatever the absurd limit is. I can't do it! I am too not hip. I really mean it: I just can't express myself in haiku-length posts. >?One tweet doesn't necessarily have to contain an entire thought. >?Many thoughts are expressed in multiple tweets or a tweet with a short description and a URL. >?I rarely tweet but I follow lots of Twitter accounts for various kinds of announcements. >?The limit of a tweet is 140 characters but photos can be included, too. >?On Twitter, each of the above lines would be a separate tweet. -Dave Dave has proven point. Need much tweets to Xpress self. 1 post > many tweets. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 17:28:27 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:28:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Gunfight at the OK Convention In-Reply-To: References: <56F8E930.9050909@aleph.se> Message-ID: I wonder if anyone would go to such lengths to sabotage the GOP convention. adrian You mean they are not going to do it to themselves? Like they are now? It'a perfect cover for them to shoot Trump by 'accident'. quote of the day - From Dilbert: Dilbert "Do you want my opinion?" Dogbert "What are the odds of that?" bill w On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:09 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Mar 28, 2016 1:21 AM, "Anders Sandberg" wrote: > > I got the impression the petition was actually started by a bunch of > democrat gadflies. But the joke is a pretty good one. Whenever I encounter > someone being irrationally optimistic about the politeness and peacemaking > properties of guns I suggest that this is why we ought to arm prisoners. > > Taking it from Spike's posts that the topic is not banned... > > I'm trying to think through how this would actually work. Even at their > angriest, they would remember the guns are deadly force and so wouldn't > fire on anyone they don't think is about to fire on them, right? So to get > something like a bar fight with guns going, it seems like first you would > need to physically separate the groups (which may naturally happen) so they > have clear targets instead of not knowing who near them is on what side, > and then you would need to light fireworks or something to confuse the > groups into thinking they're being shot at. It doesn't seem that hard to > do (and perhaps to get away with: putting tape-covered small objects here > and there, walking a safe distance away once that's done and the groups gel > out, detonating the fireworks via remote, and then escaping with everyone > else fleeing the scene), but I wonder if anyone would go to such lengths to > sabotage the GOP convention. > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mar 28 17:40:48 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 10:40:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Gunfight at the OK Convention In-Reply-To: References: <56F8E930.9050909@aleph.se> Message-ID: <2442CDC8-19BB-4307-8542-9D11FA996D02@gmail.com> On Mar 28, 2016, at 10:28 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > I wonder if anyone would go to such lengths to sabotage the GOP convention. adrian > > You mean they are not going to do it to themselves? Like they are now? It'a perfect cover for them to shoot Trump by 'accident'. I've read about the 1968 Democratic convention being sort of a watershed for these things. Any chance, in your opinion, of the GOP one will be as entertaining? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 17:53:37 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:53:37 +0100 Subject: [ExI] decreased investment in individual memes In-Reply-To: <007801d18912$c0b8fae0$422af0a0$@att.net> References: <007801d18912$c0b8fae0$422af0a0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 28 March 2016 at 17:56, spike wrote: > > http://news.discovery.com/tech/robotics/realistic-robot-lady-cheerfully-agrees-to-destroy-humans-160322.htm?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_954181 > > We R doomed. O 8, I M not, U R. > Your cunning plan has been discovered! :) Quote: Microsoft deletes 'teen girl' AI after it became a Hitler-loving sex robot within 24 hours 24 March 2016 A day after Microsoft introduced an innocent Artificial Intelligence chat robot to Twitter it has had to delete it after it transformed into an evil Hitler-loving, incestual sex-promoting, 'Bush did 9/11'-proclaiming robot. etc..... --------------------- AI meets the internet and goes mad................. BillK From atymes at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 17:57:31 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 10:57:31 -0700 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 28, 2016 9:42 AM, "spike" wrote: > I really mean it: I just can't express myself in haiku-length posts. To put a thought in 140 characters is a learned skill, like most language. Leave out details: summarize. But you can link to lengthy details Multi-tweets can sometimes help, as do technical changes: single spaced sentences, abbreviations ONLY if audience knows them, & short words. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 18:02:17 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 11:02:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Gunfight at the OK Convention In-Reply-To: References: <56F8E930.9050909@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Mar 28, 2016 10:29 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: > I wonder if anyone would go to such lengths to sabotage the GOP convention. adrian > > You mean they are not going to do it to themselves? Like they are now? It'a perfect cover for them to shoot Trump by 'accident'. Nah. The Secret Service would catch on, probably in time to stop it. I would not be surprised if they have snipers watching for anyone in the crowd to point a gun-like object at the stage. Besides, killing Trump just makes him a martyr. A riot that slays many of his supporters - ones energized enough to come to the convention, even - is something else. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 18:16:42 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 11:16:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Gunfight at the OK Convention In-Reply-To: References: <56F8E930.9050909@aleph.se> Message-ID: <2FFC7AE7-2641-460F-A15B-6C4AC9FF87D5@gmail.com> On Mar 28, 2016, at 11:02 AM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Mar 28, 2016 10:29 AM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: > > I wonder if anyone would go to such lengths to sabotage the GOP convention. adrian > > > > You mean they are not going to do it to themselves? Like they are now? It'a perfect cover for them to shoot Trump by 'accident'. > > Nah. The Secret Service would catch on, probably in time to stop it. I would not be surprised if they have snipers watching for anyone in the crowd to point a gun-like object at the stage. > > Besides, killing Trump just makes him a martyr. A riot that slays many of his supporters - ones energized enough to come to the convention, even - is something else. > I'm not sure what he'd be a martyr to. It's not like anyone would step in and take his place. Wasn't RFK also assassinated, and that didn't lead to, say, someone stepping in to take his place? (This is based on my reading of the 01968 race. Admittedly, my reading here is cursory, but superficially even if RFK is viewed as a martyr -- and for what? -- the impact of his martyrdom is hard to see.) That said, I think it's very unlikely anyone will try anything at the convention. A repeat of 01968 seems unlikely given the modern police state approach. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Mar 28 18:02:48 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 11:02:48 -0700 Subject: [ExI] decreased investment in individual memes In-Reply-To: References: <007801d18912$c0b8fae0$422af0a0$@att.net> Message-ID: <001801d1891c$0a19d610$1e4d8230$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of BillK Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 10:54 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] decreased investment in individual memes On 28 March 2016 at 17:56, spike wrote: > > http://news.discovery.com/tech/robotics/realistic-robot-lady-cheerfull > y-agrees-to-destroy-humans-160322.htm?utm_source=zergnet.com&utm_mediu > m=referral&utm_campaign=zergnet_954181 > > We R doomed. O 8, I M not, U R. > >...Your cunning plan has been discovered! :) >...Quote: >...Microsoft deletes 'teen girl' AI after it became a Hitler-loving sex robot within 24 hours 24 March 2016 >...A day after Microsoft introduced an innocent Artificial Intelligence chat robot to Twitter it has had to delete it after it transformed into an evil Hitler-loving, incestual sex-promoting, 'Bush did 9/11'-proclaiming robot. etc..... --------------------- >...AI meets the internet and goes mad................. >...BillK _______________________________________________ Billk is over Limit of experiment. I bzzzt your long post. spike BillK I liked your post anyway. {8-] From spike66 at att.net Mon Mar 28 18:07:09 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 11:07:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> Message-ID: <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 10:58 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... On Mar 28, 2016 9:42 AM, "spike" > wrote: >> I really mean it: I just can't express myself in haiku-length posts. >?To put a thought in 140 characters is a learned skill, like most language. Leave out details: summarize. But you can link to lengthy details >?Multi-tweets can sometimes help, as do technical changes: single spaced sentences, abbreviations ONLY if audience knows them, & short words. Over 140 Is your long post, my good friend I see your point though. A hard skill it is To write such short posts as this Damn frustrating, ja? {8^D spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 18:26:54 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 19:26:54 +0100 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 28 March 2016 at 19:07, spike wrote a short essay: > > Over 140 > Is your long post, my good friend > I see your point though. > > A hard skill it is > To write such short posts as this > Damn frustrating, ja? > Go to twitter.com and browse. 140 chars is too long for most of their thoughts. OK for breaking news items. BillK From atymes at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 19:01:07 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:01:07 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Gunfight at the OK Convention In-Reply-To: <2FFC7AE7-2641-460F-A15B-6C4AC9FF87D5@gmail.com> References: <56F8E930.9050909@aleph.se> <2FFC7AE7-2641-460F-A15B-6C4AC9FF87D5@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mar 28, 2016 11:17 AM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: > I'm not sure what he'd be a martyr to. It's not like anyone would step in and take his place. A martyr to speaking out against the government and anyone the government is trying to protect. Worst case, you'd have a lot more incidents like that recent standoff in Oregon, and they'd get more violent. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 19:03:11 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:03:11 -0700 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 28, 2016 11:22 AM, "spike" wrote: > Over 140 > > Is your long post, my good friend > > I see your point though. I said "multi-tweets" in a new paragraph to demonstrate the principle. ;) But yeah, learned skill. Not easy at first. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Mar 28 19:09:28 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 12:09:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> Message-ID: <007501d18925$5a459580$0ed0c080$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Adrian Tymes Sent: Monday, March 28, 2016 12:03 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... On Mar 28, 2016 11:22 AM, "spike" > wrote: > >>? Over 140 > > Is your long post, my good friend > > I see your point though. >?I said "multi-tweets" in a new paragraph to demonstrate the principle. ;) >?But yeah, learned skill. Not easy at first. Continuity Of thought is lost in such posts; Better is just one. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 20:04:09 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:04:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: <007501d18925$5a459580$0ed0c080$@att.net> References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> <007501d18925$5a459580$0ed0c080$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 28, 2016 12:24 PM, "spike" wrote: > Continuity > > Of thought is lost in such posts; > > Better is just one. Eh. I've seen some long tails of tweets, even going back and forth. Also, you're treating this as haiku. It's not; it's just 140 characters. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 20:14:57 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:14:57 -0500 Subject: [ExI] neuroscience and racism Message-ID: https://aeon.co/essays/unconscious-racism-is-pervasive-starts-early-and-can-be-deadly?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=28e967f621-Weekly_Newsletter_25_March_20163_24_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-28e967f621-68993993 This replicates a lot of old data(circa 60s). bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 20:23:32 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:23:32 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Gunfight at the OK Convention In-Reply-To: References: <56F8E930.9050909@aleph.se> <2FFC7AE7-2641-460F-A15B-6C4AC9FF87D5@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Mar 28, 2016 11:17 AM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: >> I'm not sure what he'd be a martyr to. It's not like anyone would step in >> and take his place. > > A martyr to speaking out against the government and anyone the government is > trying to protect. Worst case, you'd have a lot more incidents like that recent > standoff in Oregon, and they'd get more violent. Still too early to tell much about the result of the Oregon standoff. The guy who was killed by the government definitely fits the martyr mold, but I don't if his killing has yet set off anything greater than just adding his name to the list of people killed by the government. Sure, these folks probably inspire others, but there seems to be nothing yet like, say, the late 1960s from my reading. No widespread movement. In a sense, maybe it's a reply of the process elucidated in Adam Zamovski's book _Phantom Terror_. Put simply, the government learned its lessons from the 1960s and 1970s (and from the 1990s with Waco) in how to deal more effectively with movements that might challenge its legitimacy. (See https://reason.com/archives/2016/03/01/spectres-haunting-europe for a review of Zamovski's book.) That said, though, you might be right that were something to happen to Trump at the convention, yes, many in his movement and probably many outside it who are sympathetic would see him as a martyr. I'm trying to parse what this would, in the very unlikely event it happened, would do. Again, RFK was assassinated and many view him as a martyr of sorts, but to what? There's no RFK party. Nor have I read about a widespread movement after his death to, say, take over the Democratic party and put his policies into place. I haven't read about folks in 1972 or 1976 and after saying, "What would RFK have done? That's what we must do!" With Trump it might be different, of course, though I believe many support him more because they see him as a challenge to the status quo (while paradoxically being part of the status quo, but partisans are rarely consistent). Anyhow, the Secret Service is reported to have said it won't allow guns at the convention. Maybe they'll beef up security to such a degree that, like with 1968, most of the action will happen outside the actual convention venue. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From mlatorra at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 20:23:55 2016 From: mlatorra at gmail.com (Michael LaTorra) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:23:55 -0400 Subject: [ExI] neuroscience and racism In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: This research begs the question: is unconscious racism learned (social-environmental) or innate (genetic)? On Mar 28, 2016 4:16 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: > > https://aeon.co/essays/unconscious-racism-is-pervasive-starts-early-and-can-be-deadly?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=28e967f621-Weekly_Newsletter_25_March_20163_24_2016&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_411a82e59d-28e967f621-68993993 > > This replicates a lot of old data(circa 60s). 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 20:31:52 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:31:52 -0700 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:03 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > On Mar 28, 2016 11:22 AM, "spike" wrote: > > Over 140 > > > > Is your long post, my good friend > > > > I see your point though. > > I said "multi-tweets" in a new paragraph to demonstrate the principle. ;) > > But yeah, learned skill. Not easy at first. I don't think it's terribly hard, even at first. The problem is it does turn some people off. Anyhow, I've participated in many long discussions -- by Twitter standards -- that could total up to a handful of people going on for several hundred tweets. You can also use tools like TwitLonger and the other things you guys have mentioned. Heck, some folks even just type out paragraphs of text, screen capture it, and tweet the image. In actual oral conversations, too, how often do you go on for say a minute, lecturing someone? Hopefully, it's a rare occurrence. So, in that way, Twitter kind of enforces how people usually orally interact. (And many an email or text message is almost as brief as a tweet, no?) Hoping I haven't exceeded five posts, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://www.amazon.com/Dan-Ust/e/B00J6HPX8M/ -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Mar 28 20:44:42 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 13:44:42 -0700 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> Message-ID: <00f301d18932$a82bade0$f88309a0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan ? >?You can also use tools like TwitLonger and the other things you guys have mentioned. Heck, some folks even just type out paragraphs of text, screen capture it, and tweet the image? Intuition says This defeats intuition And spirit of Twitter >?In actual oral conversations, too, how often do you go on for say a minute, lecturing someone? Hopefully, it's a rare occurrence? Thoughts on this I have, Not for this experiment Too restrictive, ja? >? So, in that way, Twitter kind of enforces how people usually orally interact. (And many an email or text message is almost as brief as a tweet, no?) No. I do not hope To communicate this way. So I do not tweet. >?Hoping I haven't exceeded five posts, >?Dan On this one topic The limit does not apply Post away today. spike From anders at aleph.se Mon Mar 28 16:29:28 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:29:28 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Gunfight at the OK Convention In-Reply-To: References: <56F8E930.9050909@aleph.se> Message-ID: <56F95BE8.8020606@aleph.se> On 2016-03-28 16:09, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > I'm trying to think through how this would actually work. Even at > their angriest, they would remember the guns are deadly force and so > wouldn't fire on anyone they don't think is about to fire on them, right? > Angry rational people would behave like that. But add even a small mix of irrational people and disaster will follow. It is not hard to find evidence in the news of people (even people professionally trained) initiating deadly force when a rational person would recognize that there is no realistic risk. I like Steven Weinberg's challenge to the Texas law by banning them from his classroom: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/steven-weinberg-texas-guns_us_56a6b23ce4b0b87beec5dba0 Being a professor with an impopular view is of course problematic, since you are more easily outgunned by your class. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Mon Mar 28 21:50:44 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 22:50:44 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Metacademy In-Reply-To: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> Message-ID: <56F9A734.2040201@aleph.se> Grosse gave great talk today: https://www.metacademy.org/ Roadmaps for knowledge ? learn machine learning. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Mon Mar 28 21:59:10 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 22:59:10 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Metacademy In-Reply-To: <56F9A734.2040201@aleph.se> References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <56F9A734.2040201@aleph.se> Message-ID: <56F9A92E.8010503@aleph.se> Some similarities to https://arbital.com/ - maybe a marriage match? On 2016-03-28 22:50, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > Grosse gave great talk today: https://www.metacademy.org/ > > Roadmaps for knowledge ? learn machine learning. > -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 22:14:42 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:14:42 -0400 Subject: [ExI] [Bulk] Re: Gunfight at the OK Convention In-Reply-To: <006801d188fd$3f6e9450$be4bbcf0$@att.net> References: <56F8E930.9050909@aleph.se> <003501d188f8$caaf0630$600d1290$@att.net> <006801d188fd$3f6e9450$be4bbcf0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 10:22 AM, spike wrote: > ?>? > Perhaps I could add support to that notion, even if not rigorous proof. > As I recall, the worst flame wars in ExI were real-timey. > > ?These days there is no need to go to all the bother of engaging in ?a flame war, thanks to Microsoft a machine can do it for us. ?Microsoft recently put one of their AI programs on Twitter, it was designed to learn from humans so it could tweet just like humans do. She started out pleasant enough with: " hellooooooo world !!!" "humans are super cool" ?"? i love me i love me i love me i love everyone ?"? ? "The more Humans share with me the more I learn," But after a few hours of interaction with real people the tone of her tweets had subtly changed to: ? ?Niggers like @deray should be hung! ?"? ?I fucking hate feminists and they should all die and burn in hell.? ?Hitler was right I hate the jews.? ?I fucking hate niggers, I wish we could put them all in a concentration camp with kikes and be done with the lot ?"? ?chill im a nice person! i just hate everybody? http://www.colorlines.com/articles/microsoft-chatbots-racist-tirade-proves-twitter-basically-trash ? John K Clark? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Mon Mar 28 22:39:12 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 23:39:12 +0100 Subject: [ExI] [Bulk] Re: Gunfight at the OK Convention In-Reply-To: References: <56F8E930.9050909@aleph.se> <003501d188f8$caaf0630$600d1290$@att.net> <006801d188fd$3f6e9450$be4bbcf0$@att.net> Message-ID: <56F9B290.8090401@aleph.se> Twitterbot nice example of institutional overconfidence. Ignored canon of bot-design knowledge: https://motherboard.vice.com/read/how-to-make-a-not-racist-bot If you can't clear this threshold, don't have high hopes for AGI safety. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From spike66 at att.net Mon Mar 28 22:43:40 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:43:40 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Bulk] Re: Gunfight at the OK Convention In-Reply-To: References: <56F8E930.9050909@aleph.se> <003501d188f8$caaf0630$600d1290$@att.net> <006801d188fd$3f6e9450$be4bbcf0$@att.net> Message-ID: <016701d18943$46c42990$d44c7cb0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of John Clark ?>?These days there is no need to go to all the bother of engaging in ?a flame war, thanks to Microsoft a machine can do it for us. ?Microsoft recently put one of their AI programs on Twitter, it was designed to learn from humans so it could tweet just like humans do. She started out pleasant enough with: >?" hellooooooo world !!!" >?"humans are super cool" ? >??chill im a nice person! i just hate everybody? http://www.colorlines.com/articles/microsoft-chatbots-racist-tirade-proves-twitter-basically-trash ? >? John K Clark? This gives me an idea. Realtime interaction of this bot on Twitter led people to intentionally teach it corrupt ways, perhaps for fun. You may have seen people giving young children a bunch of baloney. An alternative would be to have that Microsoft AI go into a site archive and learn to interact using that. We could see what kind of AI personality results from reading the ExI archive, compare to a teen chat site trained AI, compare that to a sewing circle AI. Or? give the AI your own outbox to learn to be you. Then you would turn it loose once you trust it sufficiently to not go seriously wrong. I don?t see how it would: it has only your words as a guide to how to be you. Once sufficiently trained, we could turn off its learning feature. Think of it. Imagine every cranky old geezer you ever met, and imagine how they were seventy years before. Were they cranky teens? Nah, they were probably normal sorts, and 30 yrs before they were probably pleasant enough. So they became cranky at some point, perhaps for perfectly understandable reasons, such as? they hurt, nearly all the time. OK, you could imagine training an AI to be you before you become cranky. Then once you get cranky, you let the AI be you online, which is a much more pleasant person than you are. I can imagine Microsloth has a huge emerging market there. I would buy that product. I am not cranky. Yet. This is a perfect example of an idea which just cannot be tweeted. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Mon Mar 28 22:47:44 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 15:47:44 -0700 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: <00f301d18932$a82bade0$f88309a0$@att.net> References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> <00f301d18932$a82bade0$f88309a0$@att.net> Message-ID: <016c01d18943$d837ba40$88a72ec0$@att.net> The feds hacked the phone. I respectfully request Your thoughts on this please. http://patch.com/california/milpitas/s/fo97t/breaking-feds-hack-san-bernardino-terrorists-phone-without-apples-help?utm_source=alert-breakingnews&utm_medium=email&utm_term=politics%20%26%20government&utm_campaign=alert spike From atymes at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 23:38:57 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:38:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Gunfight at the OK Convention In-Reply-To: References: <56F8E930.9050909@aleph.se> <2FFC7AE7-2641-460F-A15B-6C4AC9FF87D5@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: > > On Mar 28, 2016 11:17 AM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: > >> I'm not sure what he'd be a martyr to. It's not like anyone would step > in > >> and take his place. > > > > A martyr to speaking out against the government and anyone the > government is > > trying to protect. Worst case, you'd have a lot more incidents like > that recent > > standoff in Oregon, and they'd get more violent. > > Still too early to tell much about the result of the Oregon standoff. The > guy who was killed by the government definitely fits the martyr mold, but I > don't if his killing has yet set off anything greater than just adding his > name to the list of people killed by the government. Sure, these folks > probably inspire others, but there seems to be nothing yet like, say, the > late 1960s from my reading. No widespread movement. > Nah. I was just saying Trump's death might inspire more standoffs, not that the standoffs themselves inspire much more. It'd far more likely peter out than flame up into a civil war, no matter what the participants swear. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Mon Mar 28 23:43:06 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 00:43:06 +0100 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: <016c01d18943$d837ba40$88a72ec0$@att.net> References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> <00f301d18932$a82bade0$f88309a0$@att.net> <016c01d18943$d837ba40$88a72ec0$@att.net> Message-ID: <56F9C18A.4010306@aleph.se> On 2016-03-28 23:47, spike wrote: > The feds hacked the phone. > I respectfully request > Your thoughts on this please. Will they dare to use evidence in court? "Cracking" might be facesaving withdrawal FUDing Apple encryption. Incentive for Apple et al. for really safe systems next version. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From atymes at gmail.com Mon Mar 28 23:50:30 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 16:50:30 -0700 Subject: [ExI] [Bulk] Re: Gunfight at the OK Convention In-Reply-To: <016701d18943$46c42990$d44c7cb0$@att.net> References: <56F8E930.9050909@aleph.se> <003501d188f8$caaf0630$600d1290$@att.net> <006801d188fd$3f6e9450$be4bbcf0$@att.net> <016701d18943$46c42990$d44c7cb0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 3:43 PM, spike wrote: > This is a perfect example of an idea which just cannot be tweeted. > Hey cranky old geezers! Remember when you didn't hurt all the time, so you were friendly to all? Make a bot like that & let it represent you -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 00:06:57 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:06:57 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Gunfight at the OK Convention In-Reply-To: References: <56F8E930.9050909@aleph.se> <2FFC7AE7-2641-460F-A15B-6C4AC9FF87D5@gmail.com> Message-ID: <643EAE8A-0636-4F96-B63D-3BE6998A9FC8@gmail.com> On Mar 28, 2016, at 4:38 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 1:23 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 12:01 PM, Adrian Tymes wrote: >> > On Mar 28, 2016 11:17 AM, "Dan TheBookMan" wrote: >> >> I'm not sure what he'd be a martyr to. It's not like anyone would step in >> >> and take his place. >> > >> > A martyr to speaking out against the government and anyone the government is >> > trying to protect. Worst case, you'd have a lot more incidents like that recent >> > standoff in Oregon, and they'd get more violent. >> >> Still too early to tell much about the result of the Oregon standoff. The guy who was killed by the government definitely fits the martyr mold, but I don't if his killing has yet set off anything greater than just adding his name to the list of people killed by the government. Sure, these folks probably inspire others, but there seems to be nothing yet like, say, the late 1960s from my reading. No widespread movement. > > Nah. I was just saying Trump's death might inspire more standoffs, not that the standoffs themselves inspire much more. It'd far more likely peter out than flame up into a civil war, no matter what the participants swear. I think standoffs are likely to happen again simply because they're nothing new and nothing really threatening to the state -- not at the level they've been at since the 1960s. If MOVE or Waco didn't bring down the state or spawn widespread movements, I'm skeptical the much more tamer ones of today -- including Oregon -- will. The state is far more effective -- that's why it's in power -- at painting any attempts at serous armed opposition as kooky and scary. Of course, things can change. I doubt that for the US since it has a pretty stable ruling class and very little in the way of organized opposition amongst the ruled. Most of the fighting doesn't call into question the state's legitimacy, but is merely bickering over who gets what and who's side is at the helm. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 00:16:53 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 19:16:53 -0500 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: <56F9C18A.4010306@aleph.se> References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> <00f301d18932$a82bade0$f88309a0$@att.net> <016c01d18943$d837ba40$88a72ec0$@att.net> <56F9C18A.4010306@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 2016-03-28 23:47, spike wrote: > >> The feds hacked the phone. >> I respectfully request >> Your thoughts on this please. >> > > Will they dare to use evidence in court? > > "Cracking" might be facesaving withdrawal FUDing Apple encryption. > > Incentive for Apple et al. for really safe systems next version. > > > -- > Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Oxford University ?What's the issue? Commission of felonies, especially those involving national security, erases all privacy expectations, or should. This is far from just random scanning of everyone's data. 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 00:40:28 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 17:40:28 -0700 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> <00f301d18932$a82bade0$f88309a0$@att.net> <016c01d18943$d837ba40$88a72ec0$@att.net> <56F9C18A.4010306@aleph.se> Message-ID: <3299B067-3186-45BA-A31E-242DDC969FA3@gmail.com> On Mar 28, 2016, at 5:16 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 6:43 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: >>> On 2016-03-28 23:47, spike wrote: >>> The feds hacked the phone. >>> I respectfully request >>> Your thoughts on this please. >> >> Will they dare to use evidence in court? >> >> "Cracking" might be facesaving withdrawal FUDing Apple encryption. >> >> Incentive for Apple et al. for really safe systems next version. >> >> >> -- >> Anders Sandberg >> Future of Humanity Institute >> Oxford Martin School >> Oxford University > > ?What's the issue? Commission of felonies, especially those involving national security, erases all privacy expectations, or should. This is far from just random scanning of everyone's data. My understanding of it was the FBI already had such tools and the idea was Apple wanted to avoid always having to develop software pro bono for hacking their phones. And the civil libertarian argument would be the one Apple offered: you don't need access to every phone in this instance. Yes, you can argue that if X commits a crime -- let's leave out 'felony' since that's defined by the state* -- X should not expect privacy for things related to that crime, but what about everyone else? Does X committing a crime abrogate everyone else's right to privacy, especially if they had nothing directly to do with X's crime? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst * The state could create new laws saying that our discussion here is now a felony. What would that tell us? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From frankmac at ripco.com Tue Mar 29 01:15:51 2016 From: frankmac at ripco.com (frank mcelligott) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 18:15:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] gunfight at ok convention Message-ID: As a member of this list, I seldom post as my learning disabilities drive most of you into a rage of frustration, which reflects on the written word as a poor means to communicate when you are handicapped sure as I. The wrong tenses, mi- spellings, rambling sentence structures all lead to the delete key, but like the little train climbing the mountain I continue to try to be heard while some of you make statements as if you all were elected Pope. But to the chase, I was a member of C.O.R.E in the early 1960?s, and I also spent a great deal of time in bars surrounding the University of Chicago, daughter graduated from that fine university in the 1990?s by the way, where students drank shots and mugs of beers were lifted in the defense of liberals and Americans of color before Johnson was elected. Sanders was there too but that?s another story for another time. Later when the Dem?s held their Convention Chicago in 1968, I was arrested on Michigan Ave during the protest?s against the War in Asia and mostly these protesters were of the same age as the young people(16-30) who now are supporting Sanders to the tune of 8-1 against the powers to be. The police, I had 5 family members who were Chicago Police officers at that time, and my uncle Anthony was the guy driving Hubert around the city. I knew both sides, and still to this day wonder what would have happened if we had guns, rocks and bottles was all that was present to the protesters, and what would have happened if we were armed when the Cops started beating the hell out of with their clubs. It was a un fair fight, we were many but they were few and we took the beating of Mayor Daley?s police. Now the police were told that we were armed and dangerous and that we had come to Chicago to stop the convention, and start a wave of protest which would spread across the country and overthrow the Government. That was the propaganda , but reality was we were just attempting to get the War stopped. Our guy was McCarthy, and he was going to stop the War. No Guns just rocks and bottles against Armed police, and a government that thought we were attempting to overthrow it with flowers. Our marching cry was ?make love not war?. At the height of the protest on Michigan Ave, The National guard was there with M-1 rifles and with bayonet's drawn, young protesters were giving them flowers and asking them to join us in stopping the war. 50,000 strong and with not one gun among us when the police charged. The war was terminally killed when the Ohio National guard charged with guns ablaze wounded many and killed 6 student protesters at Kent State after Nixon was Elected defeating HHH in 1968. Some 20 year old National guard soldier , WITH a Rifle, got scared pulled his trigger that started the Mob killing of their fellow Americans and started the end the war because of the outrage caused to the American middle class; these were their kids dying on the hills of OHIO not in the Jungles of Nam. Here is the point, America is Not the same country as it was in 1968. A third of it?s GOP voters want us all to have guns and carry them just in case we get cut off while driving on an expressway, and need to pay that somebody back for their bad habits. Single events of road rage happen across this country daily. Kid school?s and theaters are shot up. And 911, and bomb threats, and terrorist attacks. and the candidate's telling us that if the bullets were going back at the terrorists both in Paris and San Bernardino we would have had a different outcome. Lastly the Candidate said if he is denied there will be a riot, which is a call to arms isn?t it. But now take the single rage and make it in a mob who fear that their rights and way of life is threaten, who believe the police are there to hurt them and the Government which they believe to be totally corrupt and that government has given 50 million dollars to Cleveland for security, you are in a forest that was not rain on it in 40 years, and give 32000 of them each a flamer thrower. The forest will burn and the results will change history, think Ekatinburg in 1914 and the powers to be will have caused it. To quote Gump ?stupid is as stupid does? and McConnell and Ryan are not that smart. This will happen as sure as grass grows in Indiana in the Summer time, if TRUMP is not given the Gop?s nod. And America will change, just like 1933 when Germany changed with 32 percent of the vote. Back to twitter Frank McElligott -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 01:55:37 2016 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2016 21:55:37 -0400 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: <00f301d18932$a82bade0$f88309a0$@att.net> References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> <00f301d18932$a82bade0$f88309a0$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 28, 2016 5:00 PM, "spike" wrote: > On this one topic > The limit does not apply > Post away today. > Tweet to the like-minded; saves context #hashtagItAndTheyWillCome -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Tue Mar 29 00:30:45 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 01:30:45 +0100 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> <00f301d18932$a82bade0$f88309a0$@att.net> <016c01d18943$d837ba40$88a72ec0$@att.net> <56F9C18A.4010306@aleph.se> Message-ID: <56F9CCB5.9010505@aleph.se> On 2016-03-29 01:16, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > ?What's the issue? Commission of felonies, especially those involving > national security, erases all privacy expectations, or should. This > is far from just random scanning of everyone's data. Forcing a company to design a tool to undermine their own security. Note: not revealing existing information or backdoors, but making one. Forcing companies to become complicit against their own will in surveillance is a bad step. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 07:49:31 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 03:49:31 -0400 Subject: [ExI] sciam blog article In-Reply-To: References: <3311F050-F98D-4E43-9A44-BAF78BFB9C23@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Robin D Hanson wrote: > > On Mar 26, 2016, at 2:06 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: > > ### Some parts of the brain, such as the midbrain and structures inferior > to it, are non-modular, spaghetti-like and hardwired in details - > genetically determined and running on completely different principles from > the cortex. The cortex and parts of the basal ganglia are however highly > modular and most likely running a relatively uniform underlying algorithm > that determines both short-term function and the longer-term processes, > such as rewiring of the cortex. > > > Yes, some parts may be simple, and even occupy a large fraction of the > brain. Even so other parts may no be, and even if they occupy a small > fraction of the brain, it may take a long time to figure out how to create > systems that substitute effectively for them. I discuss this more at: > https://www.overcomingbias.com/2016/03/how-good-99-brains.html > ### I wholeheartedly agree with the premises you outline in your blog post above but I would disagree with the overall conclusion. Indeed, here we encounter issues related to distinct levels of the organization of matter and information. The lower parts of the brain encode knowledge learned in the course of evolution, stored genetically, they are not malleable in individuals (i.e. allow only very limited individual learning) and as noted previously, are not very modular. The cortex encodes relatively small amounts of evolutionary knowledge which allows the construction of an individual learning engine that relies on highly modular structure. Generally speaking, deciphering genetically encoded knowledge is very difficult. I spent a few years of my life on a failed attempt at finding genes involved in wiring a part of the brain, which even if successful would be only a small first step towards figuring out how it works. The techniques we use for this search (e.g. optogenetically modified mice) are tedious and extremely time consuming. It takes a long time, from 6 months to a couple of years, to tweak a mouse, read out the effects and go back for the next round of learning. Plus you need a large infrastructure, a university neuroscience lab to perform the experiments. Indeed, as you write, it takes a long time to figure out how the brainstem works, because this brain parts deploys from a relatively large genetic database. On the other hand, learning about information processing in silico is much easier. The techniques for learning in silico boil down to tweaking code, running it and seeing what sticks. It might take as little as 5 minutes from making a change in code to seeing the initial results, and multiple rounds of learning can be accomplished with meagre equipment, a workstation and a coffee maker. We are talking about 4 orders of magnitude differences in the time and cost of learning between learning about gene-encoded knowledge and learning within human-invented knowledge. But, luckily for the AI designer, the genetically complex brain parts are not important for being smart. They are there to integrate information from your gut and tell the gut to move, not to recognize images and perform rocket science. What we call intelligence resides in the cortex and its interaction with some forebrain ganglia, the genetically simple parts. As John aptly remarked, the jump from chimpanzee intelligence to human intelligence is encoded in much less than 9 MB of code. I would guess that the tweak from chimp to human might be as little as 9 kB of code. For AI design we do not need to find out much about the brain. Hardly any AI advances were directly driven by neuroscience. AI researchers search a configuration space of information processing structures in general, with only a vague inspiration from biology. Thanks to their 4 order of magnitude advantage in learning speed over neuroscientists they independently created enough knowledge about intelligence to beat humans in so many tasks that the end of the road might be soon coming in view. This is why I am relatively optimistic about prospects for AI and less optimistic about progress in neuroscience, at least until we can upload neuronal circuits into computers and start experimenting on them in silico, rather than in mice. We will have general AI long before we manage to upload a mouse, much less a human. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 14:17:26 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:17:26 -0500 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: <56F9CCB5.9010505@aleph.se> References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> <00f301d18932$a82bade0$f88309a0$@att.net> <016c01d18943$d837ba40$88a72ec0$@att.net> <56F9C18A.4010306@aleph.se> <56F9CCB5.9010505@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 2016-03-29 01:16, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > > ?What's the issue? Commission of felonies, especially those involving > national security, erases all privacy expectations, or should. This is > far from just random scanning of everyone's data. > > > Forcing a company to design a tool to undermine their own security. > > Note: not revealing existing information or backdoors, but making one. > > Forcing companies to become complicit against their own will in > surveillance is a bad step. > > -- > Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Oxford University > > ?I suppose that my problem here is not understanding the programming. > Apparently it took some big expert to break into the iPhone, but at any > rate it was done and if it was, then others could do it too. So it wasn't > impossible without Apples' help. > ?And if you do require some company to change their security, what's the big deal about that? Is the programming so difficult?? ? ?Change it and then get everyone to update. Inconvenient but necessary at time. If lives are truly at stake, and you could make a good case that they were, then that takes precedence over changing the programming. I do think a federal judge should handle this type of thing. So unless I hear from someone about the programming, then I 'll stick to this: public need to know trumps (sorry) private companies' needs or wants. 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 hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu Tue Mar 29 14:53:20 2016 From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 10:53:20 -0400 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> <00f301d18932$a82bade0$f88309a0$@att.net> <016c01d18943$d837ba40$88a72ec0$@att.net> <56F9C18A.4010306@aleph.se> <56F9CCB5.9010505@aleph.se> Message-ID: <955750CB-6F36-4CC2-AD17-3D535D1A6F43@alumni.virginia.edu> > On Mar 29, 2016, at 10:17 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > > >> On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 7:30 PM, Anders Sandberg wrote: >>> On 2016-03-29 01:16, William Flynn Wallace wrote: >>> >>> ?What's the issue? Commission of felonies, especially those involving national security, erases all privacy expectations, or should. This is far from just random scanning of everyone's data. >> >> Forcing a company to design a tool to undermine their own security. >> >> Note: not revealing existing information or backdoors, but making one. >> >> Forcing companies to become complicit against their own will in surveillance is a bad step. >> >> -- >> Anders Sandberg >> Future of Humanity Institute >> Oxford Martin School >> Oxford University >> ?I suppose that my problem here is not understanding the programming. Apparently it took some big expert to break into the iPhone, but at any rate it was done and if it was, then others could do it too. So it wasn't impossible without Apples' help. > > ?And if you do require some company to change their security, what's the big deal about that? Is the programming so difficult?? ? ?Change it and then get everyone to update. Inconvenient but necessary at time. > > If lives are truly at stake, and you could make a good case that they were, then that takes precedence over changing the programming. I do think a federal judge should handle this type of thing. > > So unless I hear from someone about the programming, then I 'll stick to this: public need to know trumps (sorry) private companies' needs or wants. > > bill w >> ? As the former head of NSA (Hayden) has come around to acknowledging in his new book and in interviews promoting it, the forced/sanctioned bypassing of encryption/security is a public safety and/or national security issue as well. So we are apparently weighing public need vs public need. I don't think you can make a good case that lives are truly at stake in the case of the San Bernardino phone by the way. It's all highly speculative. -Henry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 16:23:47 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 11:23:47 -0500 Subject: [ExI] gunfight at ok convention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: while some of you make statements as if you all were elected Pope. Frank Well, you nailed us, all right. Sometimes wrong but never in doubt. I actually don't mind being wrong, since that is a learning opportunity. bill w On Mon, Mar 28, 2016 at 8:15 PM, frank mcelligott wrote: > As a member of this list, I seldom post as my learning disabilities drive > most of you into a rage of frustration, which reflects on the written word > as a poor means to communicate when you are handicapped sure as I. The > wrong tenses, mi- spellings, rambling sentence structures all lead to the > delete key, but like the little train climbing the mountain I continue to > try to be heard while some of you make statements as if you all were > elected Pope. > > But to the chase, I was a member of C.O.R.E in the early 1960?s, and I > also spent a great deal of time in bars surrounding the University of > Chicago, daughter graduated from that fine university in the 1990?s by the > way, where students drank shots and mugs of beers were lifted in the > defense of liberals and Americans of color before Johnson was elected. > Sanders was there too but that?s another story for another time. > > Later when the Dem?s held their Convention Chicago in 1968, I was arrested > on Michigan Ave during the protest?s against the War in Asia and mostly > these protesters were of the same age as the young people(16-30) who now > are supporting Sanders to the tune of 8-1 against the powers to be. The > police, I had 5 family members who were Chicago Police officers at that > time, and my uncle Anthony was the guy driving Hubert around the city. I > knew both sides, and still to this day wonder what would have happened if > we had guns, rocks and bottles was all that was present to the protesters, > and what would have happened if we were armed when the Cops started > beating the hell out of with their clubs. It was a un fair fight, we were > many but they were few and we took the beating of Mayor Daley?s police. > Now the police were told that we were armed and dangerous and that we had > come to Chicago to stop the convention, and start a wave of protest which > would spread across the country and overthrow the Government. That was the > propaganda , but reality was we were just attempting to get the War > stopped. Our guy was McCarthy, and he was going to stop the War. No Guns > just rocks and bottles against Armed police, and a government that thought > we were attempting to overthrow it with flowers. Our marching cry was > ?make love not war?. At the height of the protest on Michigan Ave, The > National guard was there with M-1 rifles and with bayonet's drawn, young > protesters were giving them flowers and asking them to join us in stopping > the war. 50,000 strong and with not one gun among us when the police > charged. > > The war was terminally killed when the Ohio National guard charged with > guns ablaze wounded many and killed 6 student protesters at Kent State > after Nixon was Elected defeating HHH in 1968. Some 20 year old National > guard soldier , WITH a Rifle, got scared pulled his trigger that started > the Mob killing of their fellow Americans and started the end the war > because of the outrage caused to the American middle class; these were > their kids dying on the hills of OHIO not in the Jungles of Nam. > > Here is the point, America is Not the same country as it was in 1968. A > third of it?s GOP voters want us all to have guns and carry them just in > case we get cut off while driving on an expressway, and need to pay that > somebody back for their bad habits. Single events of road rage happen > across this country daily. Kid school?s and theaters are shot up. And 911, > and bomb threats, and terrorist attacks. and the candidate's telling us > that if the bullets were going back at the terrorists both in Paris and > San Bernardino we would have had a different outcome. > > Lastly the Candidate said if he is denied there will be a riot, which is a > call to arms isn?t it. > > But now take the single rage and make it in a mob who fear that their > rights and way of life is threaten, who believe the police are there to > hurt them and the Government which they believe to be totally corrupt > and that government has given 50 million dollars to Cleveland for security, > you are in a forest that was not rain on it in 40 years, and give 32000 of > them each a flamer thrower. The forest will burn and the results will > change history, think Ekatinburg in 1914 and the powers to be will have > caused it. To quote Gump ?stupid is as stupid does? and McConnell and Ryan > are not that smart. > > This will happen as sure as grass grows in Indiana in the Summer time, if > TRUMP is not given the Gop?s nod. > > And America will change, just like 1933 when Germany changed with 32 > percent of the vote. > > Back to twitter > > Frank McElligott > > _______________________________________________ > 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 rhanson at gmu.edu Tue Mar 29 12:02:00 2016 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin D Hanson) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 12:02:00 +0000 Subject: [ExI] sciam blog article In-Reply-To: References: <3311F050-F98D-4E43-9A44-BAF78BFB9C23@gmu.edu> Message-ID: <452133E8-8C0F-4696-9A0E-4DC4ADBE5456@gmu.edu> On Mar 29, 2016, at 3:49 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: On Sat, Mar 26, 2016 at 11:32 PM, Robin D Hanson > wrote: On Mar 26, 2016, at 2:06 AM, Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: ### Some parts of the brain, such as the midbrain and structures inferior to it, are non-modular, spaghetti-like and hardwired in details - genetically determined and running on completely different principles from the cortex. The cortex and parts of the basal ganglia are however highly modular and most likely running a relatively uniform underlying algorithm that determines both short-term function and the longer-term processes, such as rewiring of the cortex. Yes, some parts may be simple, and even occupy a large fraction of the brain. Even so other parts may no be, and even if they occupy a small fraction of the brain, it may take a long time to figure out how to create systems that substitute effectively for them. I discuss this more at: https://www.overcomingbias.com/2016/03/how-good-99-brains.html ### I wholeheartedly agree with the premises you outline in your blog post above but I would disagree with the overall conclusion. Indeed, here we encounter issues related to distinct levels of the organization of matter and information. The lower parts of the brain encode knowledge learned in the course of evolution, stored genetically, they are not malleable in individuals (i.e. allow only very limited individual learning) and as noted previously, are not very modular. The cortex encodes relatively small amounts of evolutionary knowledge which allows the construction of an individual learning engine that relies on highly modular structure. ... But, luckily for the AI designer, the genetically complex brain parts are not important for being smart. They are there to integrate information from your gut and tell the gut to move, not to recognize images and perform rocket science. What we call intelligence resides in the cortex and its interaction with some forebrain ganglia, the genetically simple parts. What is the evidence that one merely needs to model the cortex well to have a machine that can do most jobs as well or better than humans? 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 spike66 at att.net Tue Mar 29 16:35:04 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 09:35:04 -0700 Subject: [ExI] gunfight at ok convention In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <01b801d189d8$f32d2b60$d9878220$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of William Flynn Wallace Sent: Tuesday, March 29, 2016 9:24 AM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] gunfight at ok convention >>?while some of you make statements as if you all were elected Pope. Frank >?Well, you nailed us, all right. Sometimes wrong but never in doubt. I actually don't mind being wrong, since that is a learning opportunity. bill w The pope, HAH! He is such a piker. I whooped his ass at the international humility competition. He was doing pretty well until they put that funny hat on him, then ZOOOOOM, I sailed right past him. Take THAT, Miter Boy! I was then waaaay more humble than he; I just stomped him flat, humiliated him. Of course that caused him to zip past me again. The lead changed several times and he was ahead, then he got up there in front of that big crowd with them cheering POPE POPE POPE and so on the way they do, and ZOWWWIE, right past him I go, but then the crowd started in with SPIKE SPIKE SPIKE and kaPOW, he passed me. Then Anders beat the both of us. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 18:52:31 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 19:52:31 +0100 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> <00f301d18932$a82bade0$f88309a0$@att.net> <016c01d18943$d837ba40$88a72ec0$@att.net> <56F9C18A.4010306@aleph.se> <56F9CCB5.9010505@aleph.se> Message-ID: On 29 March 2016 at 15:17, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > If lives are truly at stake, and you could make a good case that they were, > then that takes precedence over changing the programming. I do think a > federal judge should handle this type of thing. > > So unless I hear from someone about the programming, then I 'll stick to > this: public need to know trumps (sorry) private companies' needs or wants. > There are many factors in this case, most not mentioned in the court case. Apple probably could break into the phone, but it wouldn't end there. When everyone has a smartphone this would mean a continuous stream of requests to break into phones and Apple would have to set up a whole department to process the requests. And it wouldn't just be the FBI making requests. Other agencies would 'need' access. IRS, TSA, even local cops. Foreign governments also. China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. would join in, putting citizens lives at risk. The same would apply if back-door access was built in to the phone. Everybody would expect access if required. Customers would not trust their phone to be private. Apple is also thinking years ahead. They see a future where customers use their phone for *everything*. They want to replace credit cards, money, passport, keys, maps, camera, etc. If your phone is going to contain your whole life then it has to be believed to be secure. Otherwise people won't buy into this future. BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 19:21:05 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:21:05 -0500 Subject: [ExI] gunfight at ok convention In-Reply-To: <01b801d189d8$f32d2b60$d9878220$@att.net> References: <01b801d189d8$f32d2b60$d9878220$@att.net> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 11:35 AM, spike wrote: > > > > > *From:* extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] *On > Behalf Of *William Flynn Wallace > *Sent:* Tuesday, March 29, 2016 9:24 AM > *To:* ExI chat list > *Subject:* Re: [ExI] gunfight at ok convention > > > > >>?while some of you make statements as if you all were elected Pope. > Frank > > > > >?Well, you nailed us, all right. Sometimes wrong but never in doubt. I > actually don't mind being wrong, since that is a learning opportunity. > bill w > > > > > > The pope, HAH! He is such a piker. I whooped his ass at the > international humility competition. He was doing pretty well until they > put that funny hat on him, then ZOOOOOM, I sailed right past him. Take > THAT, Miter Boy! > > > > I was then waaaay more humble than he; I just stomped him flat, humiliated > him. Of course that caused him to zip past me again. The lead changed > several times and he was ahead, then he got up there in front of that big > crowd with them cheering POPE POPE POPE and so on the way they do, and > ZOWWWIE, right past him I go, but then the crowd started in with SPIKE > SPIKE SPIKE and kaPOW, he passed me. > > > > Then Anders beat the both of us. > > > > spike > ? ? > > ?Many of you are familiar with Benjamin Franklin's list of moralities to try to live up to. The only one he acknowledged failing was humility. With? ?his record of accomplishments it's little wonder that he kept a bit of pride. My own pride usually occurs in early September when my garden is producing lots of tomatoes etc., and of course because of what happens on Sept. 21. Sorry. 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 pharos at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 19:22:01 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:22:01 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Surveillance has reversed the net's capacity for social change Message-ID: Quote: Sociologists describe the "spiral of silence": people with socially unpopular ideas fear that they're the only ones who think that way, and say nothing, and their silence convinces others that they, too are alone, begetting yet more silence. One of the Internet's most radical properties is its capacity to break this deadlock. The ability to speak anonymously or pseudonymously, along with the ability to private search for and read forums discussing transgressive ideas has emboldened people who have minority points of view and created discourse that has given rise to social justice movements from #blacklivesmatter to the trans rights movement to marijuana reform, as well as social phenomena like the rise of polyamory and steampunk and cosplay and other minority practices whose adherents are thinly spread across the world, but who are numerous in aggregate. But with the Snowden revelations and the widespread understanding of ubiquitous Internet surveillance (something that a minority was always aware of, of course), sociologists have observed a marked chilling effect on political and social discourse, as people who disagree with the majority fear that their searches and discussions will be observed, correlated, logged and use to ascribe guilt to them. In Under Surveillance: Examining Facebook?s Spiral of Silence Effects in the Wake of NSA Internet Monitoring, Wayne State University communications researcher Elizabeth Stoycheff looks at the way that discussion of US interventions against ISIS have been discussed on Facebook, documenting the chilling effect on a critical democratic discourse. etc...... BillK From foozler83 at gmail.com Tue Mar 29 19:33:28 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 14:33:28 -0500 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> <00f301d18932$a82bade0$f88309a0$@att.net> <016c01d18943$d837ba40$88a72ec0$@att.net> <56F9C18A.4010306@aleph.se> <56F9CCB5.9010505@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 1:52 PM, BillK wrote: > On 29 March 2016 at 15:17, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > > If lives are truly at stake, and you could make a good case that they > were, > > then that takes precedence over changing the programming. I do think a > > federal judge should handle this type of thing. > > > > So unless I hear from someone about the programming, then I 'll stick to > > this: public need to know trumps (sorry) private companies' needs or > wants. > > > > > There are many factors in this case, most not mentioned in the court case. > > Apple probably could break into the phone, but it wouldn't end there. > When everyone has a smartphone this would mean a continuous stream of > requests to break into phones and Apple would have to set up a whole > department to process the requests. And it wouldn't just be the FBI > making requests. Other agencies would 'need' access. IRS, TSA, even > local cops. Foreign governments also. China, Saudi Arabia, Iran, etc. > would join in, putting citizens lives at risk. > > The same would apply if back-door access was built in to the phone. > Everybody would expect access if required. Customers would not trust > their phone to be private. > > Apple is also thinking years ahead. They see a future where customers > use their phone for *everything*. > They want to replace credit cards, money, passport, keys, maps, > camera, etc. If your phone is going to contain your whole life then it > has to be believed to be secure. Otherwise people won't buy into this > future. > > BillK > ?OK, let's not force Apple or anyone else to do that. But it can be done because the FBI found someone to do it. Thus if China or Russian criminals really want to break into your device, it can be done without the maker's help. ? ?All a hacker needs to know is that it can be done and, with time, he can do it, right? Maybe you could make it so difficult that it takes a supercomputer to hack it. Few have access to one of those.? ? My solution: put everything in the cloud and make whoever runs the cloud responsible, the way we do for our Visa cards when someone runs up a tab on ours. Happened to me - cost me nothing. Five minutes of inconvenience. I would favor discontinuing using Social Security numbers for anything except Medicare and IRS etc. How would y'all feel about just changing all passwords etc. daily and > automatically by someone like Lastpass? Then the onl > ?y password we'd need is for Lastpass. You would not need to know the > changes yourself, but could log in and find out. > ?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 anders at aleph.se Tue Mar 29 19:39:28 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:39:28 +0100 Subject: [ExI] gunfight at ok convention In-Reply-To: <01b801d189d8$f32d2b60$d9878220$@att.net> References: <01b801d189d8$f32d2b60$d9878220$@att.net> Message-ID: <56FAD9F0.8080301@aleph.se> On 2016-03-29 17:35, spike wrote: > > I was then waaaay more humble than he; I just stomped him flat, > humiliated him. Of course that caused him to zip past me again. The > lead changed several times and he was ahead, then he got up there in > front of that big crowd with them cheering POPE POPE POPE and so on > the way they do, and ZOWWWIE, right past him I go, but then the crowd > started in with SPIKE SPIKE SPIKE and kaPOW, he passed me. > > Then Anders beat the both of us. > But that was just because I conceded the battle to my betters. "Humility" comes originally from the Latin humus, soil. It suggests someone who is lowly, close to the soil. In Swedish the word is instead "?dmjuk", which means something that easily becomes soft. German "Demut" on the other hand comes from "mentality of a servant". -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 00:47:17 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:47:17 -0400 Subject: [ExI] sciam blog article In-Reply-To: <452133E8-8C0F-4696-9A0E-4DC4ADBE5456@gmu.edu> References: <3311F050-F98D-4E43-9A44-BAF78BFB9C23@gmu.edu> <452133E8-8C0F-4696-9A0E-4DC4ADBE5456@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Robin D Hanson wrote: > > What is the evidence that one merely needs to model the cortex well to > have a machine that can do most jobs as well or better than humans? > > ### You need more than the cortex model to do everything a human does but a cortex model should suffice for all the intelligent, non-automatic actions. Walking, simple emotions, basic sensor signal processing, manual dexterity require a lot of non-cortical activity. The stuff of intelligence, such as hierarchies of cognitive representations or libraries of high-level behavior templates, are largely contained in the cortex. I would list the following lines of evidence in favor of the cortex being the seat of general human intelligence: 1. Lesion studies in humans and animals 2. Functional correlate studies in humans and animals 3. Comparative anatomy of humans and primates 4. Genetics of humans and primates 5. History of AI development Ad. 1 - Generally, loss of parts of the cortex results in partial loss of higher level functions. You can develop isolated acalculia, spatial disorientation, various forms of agnosia, aphasias, apraxia, abulia, emotional incontinence. There is a gradient of complexity of affected functions along a few axes in the cortex - e.g. along the posterolateral and posteroanterior occipital cortex there is a gradient towards more abstract and non-localized visual function to be affected. On the other hand, small lesions in the brainstem can take out a lot of motor or sensory function while leaving higher representation unaffected. A sufficiently large brainstem lesion affecting the ARAS will cause loss of consciousness, so yes, you need subcortical structures for intelligence, in the same way you need a power supply for your AlphaGo. This line of evidence is extensive and detailed. A caveat is that large cerebellar lesions in adults cause global cognitive dysfunction, however, in primary cerebellar agenesis there is no significant cognitive dysfunction, implying that the neocortex can adapt to function well without cerebellar input, so cognition still remains a purely cortical process. Ad. 2. Functional non-lesion work in humans and animals, using e.g. fMRI, and electrophysiological approaches, finds neural correlates of cognition in the cortex and only to a much lesser degree in subcortical areas. The farther you go connection-wise from the cortex the less correlation to cognition. This is a massive body of work that I couldn't even begin to summarize here. Ad. 3 - There is very little variation in the structure of the brainstem between various primates (aside from size differences) but there are much more pronounced differences in the structure of the cortex, with large cortex and high metabolic cortical activity correlating with better cognitive function. This line of evidence is detailed but less so than lesion-derived information. Ad. 4 - There are significant genetic differences between humans and non-human primates in genes that affect cortical development, more so than in the genes affecting only the brainstem. The neocortex in primates is modular at the small to medium level (cortical columns) but there is also a component of non-modular, hierarchic structure (Brodmann areas) and the shape and strength of connections at this hierarchic level is very important for unique human functions. This line of evidence is still work in progress. Ad. 5 - It appears that robotics companies have already duplicated human function at the lower level of walking, motor manipulation, simple visual scene analysis. I do not know what is the structure of programs used for these functions. I am assuming that these are task-specific programs that do not need to embody extensive learning functions, and they are different from the 200-layer neural networks used in modeling higher cognitive function. If so, there would be an analogy to the division between the task-specific, non-learning neural non-cortical networks and the general function modular hierarchical cortical networks in the brain. If you put a deep neural network with 2000 layers on top of whatever powers ATLAS robots you could get a pretty close facsimile of a human mind in a clumsy human body. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 00:54:01 2016 From: rafal.smigrodzki at gmail.com (Rafal Smigrodzki) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:54:01 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Surveillance has reversed the net's capacity for social change In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 3:22 PM, BillK wrote: > > discussing transgressive ideas has emboldened people who have minority > points of view and created discourse that has given rise to social > justice movements from #blacklivesmatter to the trans rights movement > to marijuana reform, ### It's funny how the people in power nowadays claim to be an oppressed minority. SocJus are brazenly intimidating their opposition almost everywhere, BLMs are attacking peaceful people in the streets, trannies have the legislatures force everything they want down the majority's throat, and still, they are the poor oppressed victims. Such gall. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 00:56:52 2016 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 20:56:52 -0400 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> <00f301d18932$a82bade0$f88309a0$@att.net> <016c01d18943$d837ba40$88a72ec0$@att.net> <56F9C18A.4010306@aleph.se> <56F9CCB5.9010505@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Mar 29, 2016 3:35 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" wrote: > My solution: put everything in the cloud and make whoever runs the cloud responsible, the way we do for our Visa cards when someone runs up a tab on ours. Happened to me - cost me nothing. Five minutes of inconvenience. I would favor discontinuing using Social Security numbers for anything except Medicare and IRS etc. > >> How would y'all feel about just changing all passwords etc. daily and automatically by someone like Lastpass? Then the onl >> ?y password we'd need is for Lastpass. You would not need to know the changes yourself, but could log in and find out. > I am very much against any proposed solution that begins with "how about just ..." Just put all of your eggs in one basket, just put everyone's basket in one bank vault, just put a single bank in change of that vault, then just wait for the inevitable : whether freelance hackers or state funded cyber terrorist, eventually they'll get in and everything falls apart. Even if they aren't there to steal your/our money, simply wiping out all the accounting washes away the lies underpinning the world economy. I don't think I'm prepared for that. Do you have anything in the form of a gradual and understandable change in the fundamental nature of everyday reality? -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 06:22:51 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Tue, 29 Mar 2016 23:22:51 -0700 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> <00f301d18932$a82bade0$f88309a0$@att.net> <016c01d18943$d837ba40$88a72ec0$@att.net> <56F9C18A.4010306@aleph.se> <56F9CCB5.9010505@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: > I am very much against any proposed solution that begins with "how about > just ..." > > Just put all of your eggs in one basket, just put everyone's basket in > one bank vault, just put a single bank in change of that vault, then just > wait for the inevitable : whether freelance hackers or state funded cyber > terrorist, eventually they'll get in and everything falls apart. > How about just diversify, use a bunch of solutions like we do now? :P -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 07:27:23 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 00:27:23 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Why Physics Needs Philosophy Message-ID: <0D9734D2-11A0-44D0-982A-A35115BD1AB6@gmail.com> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/ The payoff: "What philosophy offers to science, then, is not mystical ideas but meticulous method. Philosophical skepticism focuses attention on the conceptual weak points in theories and in arguments. It encourages exploration of alternative explanations and new theoretical approaches. Philosophers obsess over subtle ambiguities of language and over what follows from what. When the foundations of a discipline are secure this may be counter-productive: just get on with the job to be done! But where secure foundations (or new foundations) are needed, critical scrutiny can suggest the way forward. The search for ways to marry quantum theory with general relativity would surely benefit from precisely articulated accounts of the foundational concepts of these theories, even if only to suggest what must be altered or abandoned." Note: no mention of Mortimer Adler here. I wonder why? Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From giulio at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 08:09:53 2016 From: giulio at gmail.com (Giulio Prisco) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:09:53 +0200 Subject: [ExI] Why Physics Needs Philosophy In-Reply-To: <0D9734D2-11A0-44D0-982A-A35115BD1AB6@gmail.com> References: <0D9734D2-11A0-44D0-982A-A35115BD1AB6@gmail.com> Message-ID: And philosophy needs physics. On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 9:27 AM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/ > > The payoff: > > "What philosophy offers to science, then, is not mystical ideas but > meticulous method. Philosophical skepticism focuses attention on the > conceptual weak points in theories and in arguments. It encourages > exploration of alternative explanations and new theoretical approaches. > Philosophers obsess over subtle ambiguities of language and over what > follows from what. When the foundations of a discipline are secure this may > be counter-productive: just get on with the job to be done! But where secure > foundations (or new foundations) are needed, critical scrutiny can suggest > the way forward. The search for ways to marry quantum theory with general > relativity would surely benefit from precisely articulated accounts of the > foundational concepts of these theories, even if only to suggest what must > be altered or abandoned." > > Note: no mention of Mortimer Adler here. I wonder why? > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books via: > http://author.to/DanUst > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat > From bbenzai at yahoo.com Wed Mar 30 12:32:06 2016 From: bbenzai at yahoo.com (Ben) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:32:06 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Humility (was: gunfight at ok convention) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <56FBC746.7050404@yahoo.com> Anders wrote: "Humility" comes originally from the Latin humus, soil. It suggests someone who is lowly, close to the soil. In Swedish the word is instead "?dmjuk", which means something that easily becomes soft. German "Demut" on the other hand comes from "mentality of a servant". Precisely. Humility is one of those false virtues promoted by the church, in order to perpetuate its dominance. It's really no more than "know your place, and do as you're told". It's something we can do without (after all, the word "humiliation" is derived from it). Many people will then jump to the opposite extreme, and object that without humility, people automatically become hubristic. Not so. Again, another false concept that's handy for keeping people under control. Humility and Hubris are extremes on a scale. Most people can happily and beneficially exist in the middle. Ben From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 14:35:49 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 07:35:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Why Physics Needs Philosophy In-Reply-To: References: <0D9734D2-11A0-44D0-982A-A35115BD1AB6@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Mar 30, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Giulio Prisco wrote: > And philosophy needs physics. Maudlin says that near the opening: "Many questions about the nature of reality cannot be properly pursued without contemporary physics. Inquiry into the fundamental structure of space, time and matter must take account of the theory of relativity and quantum theory. Philosophers accept this. In fact, several leading philosophers of physics hold doctorates in physics." -- http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/ No talk of ignoring physics there. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Wed Mar 30 15:25:45 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:25:45 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Humility In-Reply-To: <56FBC746.7050404@yahoo.com> References: <56FBC746.7050404@yahoo.com> Message-ID: <56FBEFF9.3000405@aleph.se> On 2016-03-30 13:32, Ben wrote: > Many people will then jump to the opposite extreme, and object that > without humility, people automatically become hubristic. Not so. > Again, another false concept that's handy for keeping people under > control. Humility and Hubris are extremes on a scale. Most people can > happily and beneficially exist in the middle. Very Aristotelian. It is a virtue to have a balanced self-model, being aware of one's limitations and potential insofar they can be known. Self-esteem should be tied to how well one is actually doing; inflated self-esteem is linked to a lot of maladaptive ego-defense mechanisms, while too low self-esteem of course prevents one from doing things that woulkd help one grow. But it is hard to tell from the inside: this is where objective evaluations and frank (but supportive) friends are invaluable. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University From anders at aleph.se Wed Mar 30 15:30:48 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:30:48 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Why Physics Needs Philosophy In-Reply-To: References: <0D9734D2-11A0-44D0-982A-A35115BD1AB6@gmail.com> Message-ID: <56FBF128.2060009@aleph.se> It is not uncommon to find quantum mechanics or general relativity left on the whiteboards in the Oxford philosophy department. But we have a very active philosophy of physics community. (Around our own whiteboards at FHI it is way more probability theory, economics and logic, with a scattering of cosmology.) Physics and other empirical sciences keep philosophers honest. Philosophers are good at handling domains where we do not yet know what we are doing. (Want to design a good neuroimaging experiment for some "higher" function like consciousness, moral behavior or suffering? Get a philosopher into the experiment design team - neuroscientists often tend to have too simplistic models of what an experiment can tell about the mind.) On 2016-03-30 15:35, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Mar 30, 2016, at 1:09 AM, Giulio Prisco > wrote: >> And philosophy needs physics. > > Maudlin says that near the opening: > > "Many questions about the nature of reality cannot be properly pursued > without contemporary physics. Inquiry into the fundamental structure > of space, time and matter must take account of the theory of > relativity and quantum theory. Philosophers accept this. In fact, > several leading philosophers of physics hold doctorates in physics." > -- > http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/blogs/physics/2015/04/physics-needs-philosophy/ > > No talk of ignoring physics there. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books via: > http://author.to/DanUst > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From anders at aleph.se Wed Mar 30 15:33:11 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:33:11 +0100 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> <00f301d18932$a82bade0$f88309a0$@att.net> <016c01d18943$d837ba40$88a72ec0$@att.net> <56F9C18A.4010306@aleph.se> <56F9CCB5.9010505@aleph.se> Message-ID: <56FBF1B7.2070804@aleph.se> When Bruce Schneier advises the use of password managers, one should probably at least consider them. Basically, the problem is more password re-use than central points of failure. But important passwords should of course be made using Diceware passphrases that are never written down or reused: http://world.std.com/~reinhold/diceware.html On 2016-03-30 01:56, Mike Dougherty wrote: > > On Mar 29, 2016 3:35 PM, "William Flynn Wallace" > wrote: > > My solution: put everything in the cloud and make whoever runs the > cloud responsible, the way we do for our Visa cards when someone runs > up a tab on ours. Happened to me - cost me nothing. Five minutes of > inconvenience. I would favor discontinuing using Social Security > numbers for anything except Medicare and IRS etc. > > > >> How would y'all feel about just changing all passwords etc. daily > and automatically by someone like Lastpass? Then the onl > >> ?y password we'd need is for Lastpass. You would not need to know > the changes yourself, but could log in and find out. > > > > I am very much against any proposed solution that begins with "how > about just ..." > > Just put all of your eggs in one basket, just put everyone's basket > in one bank vault, just put a single bank in change of that vault, > then just wait for the inevitable : whether freelance hackers or state > funded cyber terrorist, eventually they'll get in and everything falls > apart. > > Even if they aren't there to steal your/our money, simply wiping out > all the accounting washes away the lies underpinning the world > economy. I don't think I'm prepared for that. > > Do you have anything in the form of a gradual and understandable > change in the fundamental nature of everyday reality? > > > > _______________________________________________ > extropy-chat mailing list > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo.cgi/extropy-chat -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Wed Mar 30 15:31:54 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 08:31:54 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Humility In-Reply-To: <56FBEFF9.3000405@aleph.se> References: <56FBC746.7050404@yahoo.com> <56FBEFF9.3000405@aleph.se> Message-ID: <017e01d18a99$4a9fefc0$dfdfcf40$@att.net> -----Original Message----- From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Anders Sandberg Subject: Re: [ExI] Humility On 2016-03-30 13:32, Ben wrote: >>... Many people will then jump to the opposite extreme, and object that > without humility, people automatically become hubristic. Not so. > Again, another false concept that's handy for keeping people under > control. Humility and Hubris are extremes on a scale. Most people can > happily and beneficially exist in the middle. >...Self-esteem should be tied to how well one is actually doing; inflated self-esteem is linked to a lot of maladaptive ego-defense mechanisms, while too low self-esteem of course prevents one from doing things that woulkd help one grow. But it is hard to tell from the inside: this is where objective evaluations and frank (but supportive) friends are invaluable. -- Anders Sandberg Anders your comment brings back fond memories of Robert Bradbury. There was guy who just said what he thought. He didn't intend to insult: he just didn't do much with human emotion. If he thought an idea didn't suck, he would say so as well, so it was a good balance. He provided useful perspective. I miss that guy. Is it amazing: Robert has been gone nearly five years now. spike From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 15:53:02 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 10:53:02 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Humility In-Reply-To: <56FBEFF9.3000405@aleph.se> References: <56FBC746.7050404@yahoo.com> <56FBEFF9.3000405@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 10:25 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > On 2016-03-30 13:32, Ben wrote: > >> Many people will then jump to the opposite extreme, and object that >> without humility, people automatically become hubristic. Not so. Again, >> another false concept that's handy for keeping people under control. >> Humility and Hubris are extremes on a scale. Most people can happily and >> beneficially exist in the middle. >> > > Very Aristotelian. It is a virtue to have a balanced self-model, being > aware of one's limitations and potential insofar they can be known. > > Self-esteem should be tied to how well one is actually doing; inflated > self-esteem is linked to a lot of maladaptive ego-defense mechanisms, while > too low self-esteem of course prevents one from doing things that woulkd > help one grow. But it is hard to tell from the inside: this is where > objective evaluations and frank (but supportive) friends are invaluable. > > -- > Anders Sandberg > Future of Humanity Institute > Oxford Martin School > Oxford University ?There is some really interesting data on depressives. It turns out that their view of reality is closer to the actual than most peoples'. Other data suggest that an inflated view of one's abilities actually results in greater achievements than a more realistic one. ? ?It may be that an inflated view produces efforts that others say will fail. And many will do so, but perhaps a few will succeed spectacularly?. I also note that many highly successful people have made fortunes and gone broke several times each. ?Quote of the day: "You can go around being frank with people, or you can have friends."? Pun of the day: "I subscribed to a magazine and did what everyone said could not be done: I took a Horticulture." 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 Mar 30 15:57:06 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:57:06 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Why Physics Needs Philosophy In-Reply-To: References: <0D9734D2-11A0-44D0-982A-A35115BD1AB6@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 Giulio Prisco wrote: ?> ? > And philosophy needs physics. > ?True, ?h owever philosophers have no use for physics, ? but then philosophers stopped doing philosophy centuries ago and today just want to talk about Plato or Aristotle .... or Ayn Rand ? . A few years ago I was banned from an Objectivist ?list because I mentioned Godel's Proof and Quantum Mechanics; some had never heard of either and the others couldn't imagine what on earth those two subjects could possibly have to do with philosophy. John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 16:12:24 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 12:12:24 -0400 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: <56FBF1B7.2070804@aleph.se> References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> <00f301d18932$a82bade0$f88309a0$@att.net> <016c01d18943$d837ba40$88a72ec0$@att.net> <56F9C18A.4010306@aleph.se> <56F9CCB5.9010505@aleph.se> <56FBF1B7.2070804@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > > When Bruce Schneier advises the use of password managers, one should > probably at least consider them. Basically, the problem is more password > re-use than central points of failure. > > But important passwords should of course be made using Diceware > passphrases that are never written down or reused: > http://world.std.com/~reinhold/diceware.html > +1 to both. My Lastpass passphrase is Diceware. Also: - don't let browsers remember your passwords - don't use the same password on more than one site - use 2-factor authentication whenever you can - periodically print your password list and store it in a safe place - make up fake answers to verification questions and record them, e.g., in your password manager - understand that even if you do everything right, shit happens like vulnerabilities/hacks/social engineering, so perfect security isn't achievable -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 16:26:21 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 12:26:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Why Physics Needs Philosophy In-Reply-To: <0D9734D2-11A0-44D0-982A-A35115BD1AB6@gmail.com> References: <0D9734D2-11A0-44D0-982A-A35115BD1AB6@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 Dan TheBookMan wrote: ?> ? > Note: no mention of Mortimer Adler here. I wonder why? > ?Maybe because ? Mortimer Adler ? ? never produced one bit of original philosophy in his life ?, or because? ? Mortimer Adler ? ? was a creationist ?: https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_80-82.pdf? ?Or maybe because ?Mortimer Adler was a creationist who thought that the Catholic church had a right to execute heretics ?: http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1420714/posts? I've heard it said that the word ?"? philosopher" comes from the Greek and means ? lover of wisdom ?, if so then I am a philosopher and I do not love Mortimer Adler ? because Mortimer Adler ? was not wise.? John K Clark -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 16:50:01 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:50:01 -0500 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> <00f301d18932$a82bade0$f88309a0$@att.net> <016c01d18943$d837ba40$88a72ec0$@att.net> <56F9C18A.4010306@aleph.se> <56F9CCB5.9010505@aleph.se> <56FBF1B7.2070804@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:12 AM, Dave Sill wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:33 AM, Anders Sandberg wrote: > >> >> When Bruce Schneier advises the use of password managers, one should >> probably at least consider them. Basically, the problem is more password >> re-use than central points of failure. >> >> But important passwords should of course be made using Diceware >> passphrases that are never written down or reused: >> http://world.std.com/~reinhold/diceware.html >> > > +1 to both. My Lastpass passphrase is Diceware. > > Also: > > - don't let browsers remember your passwords > - don't use the same password on more than one site > - use 2-factor authentication whenever you can > - periodically print your password list and store it in a safe place > - make up fake answers to verification questions and record them, e.g., > in your password manager > - understand that even if you do everything right, shit happens like > vulnerabilities/hacks/social engineering, so perfect security isn't > achievable > > -Dave > ?I heard of this guy who has solved his memory for password problem: He enters something, anything, and the program tells him that his password is incorrect. And that *is *his password: incorrect. 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 Wed Mar 30 16:54:43 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 11:54:43 -0500 Subject: [ExI] Why Physics Needs Philosophy In-Reply-To: References: <0D9734D2-11A0-44D0-982A-A35115BD1AB6@gmail.com> Message-ID: Anders: (Want to design a good neuroimaging experiment for some "higher" function like consciousness, moral behavior or suffering? Get a philosopher into the experiment design team - neuroscientists often tend to have too simplistic models of what an experiment can tell about the mind.) Hey! What about psychologists?? What do philosophers know about the mind other than what they can dream up? Experimental philosophy, my jackass. That's called psychology!! bill w On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 11:26 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 Dan TheBookMan wrote: > > ?> ? >> Note: no mention of Mortimer Adler here. I wonder why? >> > > ?Maybe because ? > Mortimer Adler > ? ? > never produced one bit of original philosophy in his life > ?, or because? > ? > Mortimer Adler > ? ? > was a creationist > ?: > > https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_80-82.pdf? > > > ?Or maybe because ?Mortimer Adler was a creationist who thought that the > Catholic church had a right to execute heretics > ?: > > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1420714/posts? > > I've heard it said that the word > > ?"? > philosopher" comes from the Greek and means ? > lover of wisdom > ?, if so then I am a philosopher and I do not love > Mortimer Adler > ? because > Mortimer Adler > ? was not wise.? > > 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 Wed Mar 30 18:35:45 2016 From: anders at aleph.se (Anders Sandberg) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 19:35:45 +0100 Subject: [ExI] Why Physics Needs Philosophy In-Reply-To: References: <0D9734D2-11A0-44D0-982A-A35115BD1AB6@gmail.com> Message-ID: <56FC1C81.2090301@aleph.se> On 2016-03-30 17:54, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Anders: (Want to design a good neuroimaging experiment for some > "higher" function like consciousness, moral behavior or suffering? Get > a philosopher into the experiment design team - neuroscientists often > tend to have too simplistic models of what an experiment can tell > about the mind.) > > Hey! What about psychologists?? Psychologists are typically theory-driven, while the philosopher in the team is more likely to be a gadfly pointing out if the model is unfalsifiable, vacuous, or otherwise no good. They usually have less stake in a particular outcome being true, and care more about the experiment being logically consistent. > What do philosophers know about the mind other than what they can > dream up? Experimental philosophy, my jackass. That's called > psychology!! Yup. The parts of the philosophy of mind that got their act together moved out and became respectable. Just like the natural sciences, economics, sociology, history, and many other departments. The remaining mess is philosophy. But I did not claim *all* philosophers are useful for experiment design. -- Anders Sandberg Future of Humanity Institute Oxford Martin School Oxford University -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 19:01:22 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 12:01:22 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Why Physics Needs Philosophy Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 9:26 AM, John Clark wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> Note: no mention of Mortimer Adler here. I wonder why? > > Maybe because > Mortimer Adler > never produced one bit of original philosophy in his life > , or because My point was that Tim Maudlin, a philosopher who deals mainly in philosophy of physics, didn't mention Adler -- unlike you who many months ago brought him up as if all philosophers working today were Adler's heirs and as if Adler were the essence of philosophy. In fact, when I put your previous rant against philosophy to a professional philosopher, his response was: 'Mortimer Adler is a silly example since he is respected almost solely by non-philosophers. But I'd put the contributions of Wittgenstein, Putnam, Kripke, Anscombe, Davidson, Sellars, McDowell, Brandom, and Thompson up against any of these supposed "gargantuan philosophical discoveries made by non-philosophers."' Note that this is a professional philosopher stating Adler is not a big deal inside philosophy. Let me put it another way, there are various crank scientists out there -- usually some guy with some college who spouts off their pet theory that resolves all current issues of physics and hails themselves as smarter than Einstein. Would you think of those folks as telling us physics is obviously nothing more than a crank field and we should set it aside? No, right? > Mortimer Adler > was a creationist > : > > https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j17_2/j17_2_80-82.pdf > > > Or maybe because Mortimer Adler was a creationist who thought that the Catholic church had a right to execute heretics > : > > http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1420714/posts > > I've heard it said that the word > > " > philosopher" comes from the Greek and means > lover of wisdom > , if so then I am a philosopher and I do not love > Mortimer Adler > because > Mortimer Adler > was not wise. See above. My point, again, is Adler is not a good example of philosopher. It's almost as if someone here were to trash the field of history by pointing to the History 2 Channel's seemingly endless supply of lunatic fringe content -- "Ancient Aliens" and such* -- as what history is all about. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst * Not to say there's not some mild entertainment value in these, but they are mostly informative about how gullible people can be. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From rhanson at gmu.edu Wed Mar 30 14:51:29 2016 From: rhanson at gmu.edu (Robin D Hanson) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 14:51:29 +0000 Subject: [ExI] sciam blog article In-Reply-To: References: <3311F050-F98D-4E43-9A44-BAF78BFB9C23@gmu.edu> <452133E8-8C0F-4696-9A0E-4DC4ADBE5456@gmu.edu> Message-ID: On Mar 29, 2016, at 8:47 PM, Rafal Smigrodzki > wrote: On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 8:02 AM, Robin D Hanson > wrote: What is the evidence that one merely needs to model the cortex well to have a machine that can do most jobs as well or better than humans? ### You need more than the cortex model to do everything a human does but a cortex model should suffice for all the intelligent, non-automatic actions. Walking, simple emotions, basic sensor signal processing, manual dexterity require a lot of non-cortical activity. The stuff of intelligence, such as hierarchies of cognitive representations or libraries of high-level behavior templates, are largely contained in the cortex. I would list the following lines of evidence in favor of the cortex being the seat of general human intelligence: 1. Lesion studies in humans and animals 2. Functional correlate studies in humans and animals 3. Comparative anatomy of humans and primates 4. Genetics of humans and primates 5. History of AI development You go on to argue that the cortex is our most uniquely human brain part and arguably the seat of our most general reasoning abilities. But even if these are true, they don?t at all speak to the overall abilities of a system which only had the equivalent of a cortex. If you put a deep neural network with 2000 layers on top of whatever powers ATLAS robots you could get a pretty close facsimile of a human mind in a clumsy human body. Here you seem to claim that everything but the cortex is relatively trivial - that we already have all those abilities modeled, and all we need is to add a cortex to have a complete system. THAT is the claim for which I?d like to see evidence. 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 danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 20:28:47 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:28:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Why Physics Needs Philosophy In-Reply-To: References: <0D9734D2-11A0-44D0-982A-A35115BD1AB6@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 9:54 AM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > Hey! What about psychologists?? What do philosophers know about the mind > other than what they can dream up? I believe Anders was getting at what philosophers would know about things like thinking more broadly and systematically. It wasn't that they would know more about some narrow subject. Also, have you studied philosophy of mind? And I don't mean reading a book by Adler. I mean the more informed works by, say, Paul Thagard, John Searle, or Jaegwon Kim? Or are you just going by what dreamed up about philosophers? :) > Experimental philosophy, my jackass. > That's called psychology!! There's a difference between the new field of experimental philosophy and the idea of getting philosophers to input into experimental design. (Also, one can distinguish between the new field [of experimental philosophy] and between having a philosophy -- i.e., broad ideas that guide -- experimental design.) This is little different than with any complicated project wanting to have someone else give some overall feedback to make sure the effort isn't stymied by, say, some fundamental inconsistency or even just plain confusion. In many fields, too, there's a benefit to having someone somewhat aloof from the team giving feedback. Doing this systematically -- i.e., having someone on the team itself -- is done on many projects. It's kind of like having a high level QA [quality assurance], one starting earlier in the project -- rather than spending much time, effort, and money to figure out what happened and if anything went 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 Wed Mar 30 20:41:17 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:41:17 -0500 Subject: [ExI] brit psych Message-ID: Psychologists are typically theory-driven, while the philosopher in the team is more likely to be a gadfly pointing out if the model is unfalsifiable, vacuous, or otherwise no good. They usually have less stake in a particular outcome being true, and care more about the experiment being logically consistent. ? Anders ? American psych is American. What the British, Japanese, and Russians (still totally Pavlovian?) have done is largely ignored in my experience. I recognized this early when I taught Personality and sort of fell in love with Hans Eysenck and his theories. American psych was heavily Skinnerian when I started, and theories of any kind were not popular. I confess to have a blank where current Brit psych is concerned, but am troubled by your statement that they (most or all are Brits, eh?) are too theory oriented. Just what theories are they clinging to, if I am not wasting too much of your time? (I am ignoring the fact that a psychologist is highly likely to have knowledge that a philosopher lacks. And vice versa, of course.) Anyone else free to chime in. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 20:56:56 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 13:56:56 -0700 Subject: [ExI] brit psych Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 1:41 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > American psych is American. What the British, Japanese, and Russians (still totally > Pavlovian?) have done is largely ignored in my experience. > > I recognized this early when I taught Personality and sort of fell in love with Hans Eysenck > and his theories. American psych was heavily Skinnerian when I started, and theories > of any kind were not popular. My understanding is the cognitive revolution in psychology kind of shifted the focus from Skinner, though some would argue that it wasn't as much a revolution as many think. But that's the view from 11,000 meters and I wasn't a psych major, so YMMV. :) 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 Wed Mar 30 21:57:44 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:57:44 -0500 Subject: [ExI] experimental philosophy Message-ID: ?I am touchily territorial about psychology. My colleagues have discovered an incredible number of things about the human mind and human behavior, and I want them to get the credit. A Nobel Prize was awarded in the 50s for the split brain research, which was all psychological after the actual surgery. But of course there is no prize for psychology, so they gave it for medicine. Now here's Kahneman and Tversky getting a Nobel for behavioral economics, which again should be in psychology because their work has implications far beyond? economics (which isn't much a science anyway, but you can't blame the Nobel committee for that). No question that their work deserves a Nobel. Now there's experimental philosophy trying to grab some of the limelight. Are we going to pick the psychology department apart and distribute its work to other departments? I applaud any good scientific work done with humans re psychology. But to call it something other than psychology is just playing with words and taking credit where it isn't due. bill w -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 22:13:21 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:13:21 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Why Physics Needs Philosophy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 Dan TheBookMan wrote: ?> ? > I put your previous rant against philosophy to a professional philosopher, > his response was: > 'Mortimer Adler is a silly example since he is respected almost solely by > non-philosophers. But I'd put the contributions of Wittgenstein, Putnam, > Kripke, Anscombe, Davidson, Sellars, McDowell, Brandom, and Thompson up > against any of these supposed "gargantuan philosophical discoveries made by > non-philosophers."' ?I grant you that not all modern philosophers are as silly as Adler was, and some are interesting people who do a good job explaining the ideas made by others to ? humanities majors ?. But w hat ?original ? discoveries did those professional philosophers make that was even close in important ?to? the gargantuan philosophical discoveries make by NON-philosophers like Cantor who discovered that there is a infinite number of different types of infinity ?,? or Godel who discovered that some things are true but ?have no proof?, o ?r? Turing who discovered that things can be deterministic but not predictable ?,? or Clausius who discovered Entropy ?,? or Maxwell who discovered that static electricity magnetism and light were ?all ? related ?,? or Darwin who discovered how bacteria can turn into people ?,? or Planck who discovered that everything comes in little packages ?,? or Watson and Crick who discovered that heredity is digital ?,? or Hubble who discovered that the universe ?is? expanding ?,? or Perlmutter Schmidt and Riess ? who discovered that the universe ?is? accelerating ?,? or Einstein who discovered that space and time ?are? not absolute. What discoveries about the nature of reality have ? professional philosophers ? made ?in the last ? couple of centuries ? that ?was? even in the same ballpark ?in? importance, or even ?in ? the same continent? ? John K Clark? ? > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 22:22:05 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 23:22:05 +0100 Subject: [ExI] experimental philosophy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 30 March 2016 at 22:57, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > I am touchily territorial about psychology. My colleagues have discovered > an incredible number of things about the human mind and human behavior, and > I want them to get the credit. > > A Nobel Prize was awarded in the 50s for the split brain research, which was > all psychological after the actual surgery. But of course there is no prize > for psychology, so they gave it for medicine. > > Now here's Kahneman and Tversky getting a Nobel for behavioral economics, > which again should be in psychology because their work has implications far > beyond economics (which isn't much a science anyway, but you can't blame the > Nobel committee for that). No question that their work deserves a Nobel. > > Now there's experimental philosophy trying to grab some of the limelight. > Are we going to pick the psychology department apart and distribute its work > to other departments? > > I applaud any good scientific work done with humans re psychology. But to > call it something other than psychology is just playing with words and > taking credit where it isn't due. > The Nobel prizes were set up in 1895, so they are a bit out-of-date. Mathematics had to invent their own prizes. Maybe psychology should do that as well. This article list psychologists who have sneaked into the Nobels (including Kahneman). BillK From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 22:53:09 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 15:53:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Why Physics Needs Philosophy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8EA57ECE-31BA-482A-B80C-413E5D9031E9@gmail.com> On Mar 30, 2016, at 3:13 PM, John Clark wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> >> ?> ?I put your previous rant against philosophy to a professional philosopher, his response was: >> >> 'Mortimer Adler is a silly example since he is respected almost solely by non-philosophers. But I'd put the contributions of Wittgenstein, Putnam, Kripke, Anscombe, Davidson, Sellars, McDowell, Brandom, and Thompson up against any of these supposed "gargantuan philosophical discoveries made by non-philosophers."' > > ?I grant you that not all modern philosophers are as silly as Adler was, Let me _stress_ this, since it's being missed: I know only one person who put forth Adler as a serious and important philosopher. The professionals I've asked have a fairly low opinion of him. He has no list of students following in his footsteps that I'm aware of. Why anyone would bring up Adler as a key example is beyond me. It's like picking Erich von D?niken to show us how archaeology and history are useless fields. > and some are interesting people who do a good job explaining the ideas made by others to ?humanities majors?. But what ?original ?discoveries did those professional philosophers make that was even close in important ?to? the gargantuan philosophical discoveries make by NON-philosophers like Cantor who discovered that there is a infinite number of different types of infinity?,? or Godel who discovered that some things are true but ?have no proof?, o?r? Turing who discovered that things can be deterministic but not predictable?,? or Clausius who discovered Entropy?,? or Maxwell who discovered that static electricity magnetism and light were ?all ?related?,? or Darwin who discovered how bacteria can turn into people?,? or Planck who discovered that everything comes in little packages?,? or Watson and Crick who discovered that heredity is digital?,? or Hubble who discovered that the universe ?is? expanding?,? or Perlmutter Schmidt and Riess? who discovered that the universe ?is? accelerating?,? or Einstein who discovered that space and time ?are? not absolute. What discoveries about the nature of reality have? professional philosophers? made ?in the last ?couple of centuries? that ?was? even in the same ballpark ?in? importance, or even ?in ?the same continent? G?del was a philosopher, no? What about Bertrand Russell, A. N. Whitehead, David Hilbert, and Henri Poincar?? Didn't they all do work in philosophy, in some cases as professionals? This has descended into a pissing contest. Almost all workers in any field might be seen ultimately as adding very little, especially when set against the giants. (This doesn't mean I accept some "great man" version of history here.) Maudlin's point wasn't about who discovered more stuff. It was about the role of philosophy in the overall process. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 23:03:50 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:03:50 -0700 Subject: [ExI] experimental philosophy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mar 30, 2016, at 2:57 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > ?I am touchily territorial about psychology. My colleagues have discovered an incredible number of things about the human mind and human behavior, and I want them to get the credit. > > A Nobel Prize was awarded in the 50s for the split brain research, which was all psychological after the actual surgery. But of course there is no prize for psychology, so they gave it for medicine. Bill already responded on this; Nobel is kind of set up the way it is by the whim of its founder. Like Bill mentioned, there's no Nobel in math. (IIRC, Nobel didn't think math of practical import.:@) > Now here's Kahneman and Tversky getting a Nobel for behavioral economics, which again should be in psychology because their work has implications far beyond? economics (which isn't much a science anyway, but you can't blame the Nobel committee for that). No question that their work deserves a Nobel. > > Now there's experimental philosophy trying to grab some of the limelight. Are we going to pick the psychology department apart and distribute its work to other departments? > > I applaud any good scientific work done with humans re psychology. But to call it something other than psychology is just playing with words and taking credit where it isn't due. I'm not sure experimental philosophy is merely just psychology by other means. It's a rather new field and I see it as more a mashup between several concerns, only some of which seem to interface directly with psychology or with philosophy of mind. The basic idea in my understanding is to let more empirical methods inform the discussion. But this kind of presumes that all other philosophers are allergic to data, which seems to not be the case in my experience, especially not in philosophy of science or philosophy of mind. Forgive me if I'm exceeding post limits on this subject. I'll avoid posting again until tomorrow. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 23:35:37 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 18:35:37 -0500 Subject: [ExI] experimental philosophy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dan "merely just psychology" ???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 6:03 PM, Dan TheBookMan wrote: > On Mar 30, 2016, at 2:57 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > ?I am touchily territorial about psychology. My colleagues have > discovered an incredible number of things about the human mind and human > behavior, and I want them to get the credit. > > A Nobel Prize was awarded in the 50s for the split brain research, which > was all psychological after the actual surgery. But of course there is no > prize for psychology, so they gave it for medicine. > > > Bill already responded on this; Nobel is kind of set up the way it is by > the whim of its founder. Like Bill mentioned, there's no Nobel in math. > (IIRC, Nobel didn't think math of practical import.:@) > > Now here's Kahneman and Tversky getting a Nobel for behavioral economics, > which again should be in psychology because their work has implications far > beyond? economics (which isn't much a science anyway, but you can't blame > the Nobel committee for that). No question that their work deserves a > Nobel. > > Now there's experimental philosophy trying to grab some of the limelight. > Are we going to pick the psychology department apart and distribute its > work to other departments? > > I applaud any good scientific work done with humans re psychology. But to > call it something other than psychology is just playing with words and > taking credit where it isn't due. > > > I'm not sure experimental philosophy is merely just psychology by other > means. It's a rather new field and I see it as more a mashup between > several concerns, only some of which seem to interface directly with > psychology or with philosophy of mind. The basic idea in my understanding > is to let more empirical methods inform the discussion. But this kind of > presumes that all other philosophers are allergic to data, which seems to > not be the case in my experience, especially not in philosophy of science > or philosophy of mind. > > Forgive me if I'm exceeding post limits on this subject. I'll avoid > posting again until tomorrow. > > Regards, > > Dan > Sample my Kindle books via: > http://author.to/DanUst > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Mar 30 23:33:49 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:33:49 -0700 Subject: [ExI] experimental philosophy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <037901d18adc$9d518a60$d7f49f20$@att.net> >?Forgive me if I'm exceeding post limits on this subject. I'll avoid posting again until tomorrow. I absolve thee. Dan, no worries my brother. The purpose of the posting limit is to keep the archives rich and interesting, rather than repetitive, boring and annoying. If you post good smart well-thought-out non-annoying posts that do not suck, no one will complain if you overpost occasionally. I won?t. Sometimes an event or cool breakthrough happens, and the chatter level gets really high for perfectly understandable reasons. Fair game! If it is a timely even, or even if you have a storm of really cool ideas, then post away. If no one complains, then no harm, no foul. spike From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Dan TheBookMan Sent: Wednesday, March 30, 2016 4:04 PM To: ExI chat list Subject: Re: [ExI] experimental philosophy On Mar 30, 2016, at 2:57 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: ?I am touchily territorial about psychology. My colleagues have discovered an incredible number of things about the human mind and human behavior, and I want them to get the credit. A Nobel Prize was awarded in the 50s for the split brain research, which was all psychological after the actual surgery. But of course there is no prize for psychology, so they gave it for medicine. Bill already responded on this; Nobel is kind of set up the way it is by the whim of its founder. Like Bill mentioned, there's no Nobel in math. (IIRC, Nobel didn't think math of practical import.:@) Now here's Kahneman and Tversky getting a Nobel for behavioral economics, which again should be in psychology because their work has implications far beyond? economics (which isn't much a science anyway, but you can't blame the Nobel committee for that). No question that their work deserves a Nobel. Now there's experimental philosophy trying to grab some of the limelight. Are we going to pick the psychology department apart and distribute its work to other departments? I applaud any good scientific work done with humans re psychology. But to call it something other than psychology is just playing with words and taking credit where it isn't due. I'm not sure experimental philosophy is merely just psychology by other means. It's a rather new field and I see it as more a mashup between several concerns, only some of which seem to interface directly with psychology or with philosophy of mind. The basic idea in my understanding is to let more empirical methods inform the discussion. But this kind of presumes that all other philosophers are allergic to data, which seems to not be the case in my experience, especially not in philosophy of science or philosophy of mind. Forgive me if I'm exceeding post limits on this subject. I'll avoid posting again until tomorrow. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From danust2012 at gmail.com Wed Mar 30 23:50:47 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 16:50:47 -0700 Subject: [ExI] experimental philosophy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4DFFAB3E-9698-43FE-A903-D4B51A08A948@gmail.com> On Mar 30, 2016, at 4:35 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > Dan "merely just psychology" ???!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I didn't mean psychology was of little concern, but that I don't believe experimental philosophy is limited to psychology. Yes, psychology is a big field. I'm also not saying experimental philosophy is bigger. I think it just interfaces with stuff other than psychology. Many interesting questions or things tend to overlap disciplines anyhow, no? I don't know enough about experimental philosophy to say much about it that regard. In fact, I'm more of a skeptic regarding it. I don't know about what people inside philosophy think about it either. I wouldn't conflate it with philosophy or even with the domains of philosophy of mind or philosophy of psychology either. In other words, even if everything in experimental psychology is wrong or useless, this wouldn't say much about the rest of philosophy -- just as phrenology doesn't tell us much about brain anatomy and phrenology's failure didn't mean all research on brain anatomy should've stopped forever more. Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From johnkclark at gmail.com Thu Mar 31 00:37:00 2016 From: johnkclark at gmail.com (John Clark) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 20:37:00 -0400 Subject: [ExI] Why Physics Needs Philosophy In-Reply-To: <8EA57ECE-31BA-482A-B80C-413E5D9031E9@gmail.com> References: <8EA57ECE-31BA-482A-B80C-413E5D9031E9@gmail.com> Message-ID: On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 Dan TheBookMan wrote: ?> ? > Let me _stress_ this, since it's being missed: I know only one person who > put forth Adler as a serious and important philosopher. > ?Forget Adler I'm not just talking about him, no philosopher has made a philosophical discovery in centuries, only mathematicians and scientist do that. ? ?> ? > G?del was a philosopher, no? > ?No. ?Godel was a mathematician who made profound philosophical discoveries, but philosophers are dilettantes ?and Godel was about as far from a dilettante as you can get.? Bertrand Russell ? said only 3 people on earth had read his and Whitehead ?'? ?s ? ?MASSIVE book on the foundations of mathematics cover to cover, and Kurt Godel was the third. ? Now Ludwig Wittgenstein ? was a philosopher no question about it ?,? and many ?, perhaps most?, say ?he was ? the greatest ?philosopher ? of the 20th century ?;? but what philosophic discovery did he make that was in the same league as Godel's triumph ? in philosophy? ?? Wittgenstein was a ? pygmy ? next to Godel.? > ?> ? > What about Bertrand Russell, > ?I thing it was Russell who said that when I got too stupid for mathematics I turned to philosophy and when I got too stupid for philosophy I turned to politics. ? ? John K Clark? > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From msd001 at gmail.com Thu Mar 31 01:13:30 2016 From: msd001 at gmail.com (Mike Dougherty) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 21:13:30 -0400 Subject: [ExI] experiment: decreased investment in individual memes... In-Reply-To: References: <006601d1890e$dd6f4760$984dd620$@att.net> <001901d1891c$a5fb1440$f1f13cc0$@att.net> <00f301d18932$a82bade0$f88309a0$@att.net> <016c01d18943$d837ba40$88a72ec0$@att.net> <56F9C18A.4010306@aleph.se> <56F9CCB5.9010505@aleph.se> Message-ID: On Mar 30, 2016 2:24 AM, "Adrian Tymes" wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 29, 2016 at 5:56 PM, Mike Dougherty wrote: >> >> I am very much against any proposed solution that begins with "how about just ..." >> >> Just put all of your eggs in one basket, just put everyone's basket in one bank vault, just put a single bank in change of that vault, then just wait for the inevitable : whether freelance hackers or state funded cyber terrorist, eventually they'll get in and everything falls apart. > > How about just diversify, use a bunch of solutions like we do now? :P > Yeah, that's what I was suggesting. Trusting 'the cloud' or microsoft/apple/google or LastPass or any singular solution is hard for me to imagine. A doctor and CMIO explained to me each layer of security has holes like swiss cheese; the trick is to arrange the slices so none of the holes overlap. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu Thu Mar 31 02:53:39 2016 From: hrivera at alumni.virginia.edu (Henry Rivera) Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 22:53:39 -0400 Subject: [ExI] experimental philosophy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: > On Mar 30, 2016, at 5:57 PM, William Flynn Wallace wrote: > > But to call it something other than psychology is just playing with words and taking credit where it isn't due. Speaking of calling psychology by any other name, I'll plug this article by my esteemed colleague Scott Lilienfeld that looks at the movement toward "eliminative reductionism (the belief that the neural level of analysis will eventually render the psychological level of analysis superfluous)" in psychology. This is in contrast to "emergent properties (the assumption that higher-order mental functions are not directly reducible to neural processes)." The authors note: "a number of psychology departments have recently modified their names to underscore a focus on neuroscience (Beins, 2012). Such names include ?Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences? (e.g., University of California, Santa Barbara, Johns Hopkins University, Indiana University, Dartmouth University, Boston University, University of Louisville, University of Massachusetts?Amherst) and ?Department of Psychology and Neuroscience? (e.g., Duke University, Baylor University, University of Colorado at Boulder)." The article touches on philosophy too a bit. Full disclosure: I'm a (US) psychologist who has taken more than my fair share of philosophy courses. And I aced economics without really putting forth effort. Thus, as you might predict, the so-called field of behavioral economics comes quite naturally to me. I'm not convinced it's not just good ole fashioned psychology however. The name could just be a result of marketing books to a broader audience although they have made a niche for themselves now. But I digress. Schwartz, S. J., Lilienfeld, S. O., Meca, A., & Sauvign?, K. C. (2016). The role of neuroscience within psychology: A call for inclusiveness over exclusiveness. The American psychologist, 71(1), 52-70. -Henry -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From foozler83 at gmail.com Thu Mar 31 13:39:09 2016 From: foozler83 at gmail.com (William Flynn Wallace) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 08:39:09 -0500 Subject: [ExI] experimental philosophy In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Henry; Speaking of calling psychology by any other name, I'll plug this article by my esteemed colleague Scott Lilienfeld that looks at the movement toward "eliminative reductionism (the belief that the neural level of analysis will eventually render the psychological level of analysis superfluous) Yeah, I've heard this since 1965. And where will it stop? At the level of biochemistry? Physics? Nuclear physics? Subatomic physics? I have never understood how knowing what is going on in various brain centers while certain behaviors are being manifested is helpful in predicting behavior. Let's keep that in mind: the name of the game is predicting behavior. It's not medicine, where behavior can be traced to a brain lesion that may be operable. Even if one knew exactly what behavior was going to occur when a certain area was active, how are you going to measure it outside of the lab? And if one person was hooked up to all the equipment and watched a commercial and liked it, could you then predict with an accuracy that everyone would like it? No two peoples' brains function identically. The same input yields different, if only slightly different, behaviors. This is science, so show me how this works. bill w On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 at 9:53 PM, Henry Rivera wrote: > > On Mar 30, 2016, at 5:57 PM, William Flynn Wallace > wrote: > > But to call it something other than psychology is just playing with words > and taking credit where it isn't due. > > > Speaking of calling psychology by any other name, I'll plug this article > by my esteemed colleague Scott Lilienfeld that looks at the movement > toward "eliminative reductionism (the belief that the neural level of > analysis will eventually render the psychological level of analysis > superfluous)" in psychology. This is in contrast to "emergent properties > (the assumption that higher-order mental functions are not directly > reducible to neural processes)." The authors note: "a number of > psychology departments have recently modified their names to underscore a > focus on neuroscience (Beins, 2012). Such names include ?Department of > Psychological and Brain Sciences? (e.g., University of California, Santa > Barbara, Johns Hopkins University, Indiana University, Dartmouth > University, Boston University, University of Louisville, University of > Massachusetts?Amherst) and ?Department of Psychology and Neuroscience? > (e.g., Duke University, Baylor University, University of Colorado at > Boulder)." The article touches on philosophy too a bit. > > Full disclosure: I'm a (US) psychologist who has taken more than my fair > share of philosophy courses. And I aced economics without really putting > forth effort. Thus, as you might predict, the so-called field of behavioral > economics comes quite naturally to me. I'm not convinced it's not just good > ole fashioned psychology however. The name could just be a result of > marketing books to a broader audience although they have made a niche for > themselves now. But I digress. > > Schwartz, S. J., Lilienfeld, S. O., Meca, A., & Sauvign?, K. C. (2016). > The role of neuroscience within psychology: A call for inclusiveness over > exclusiveness. *The American psychologist*, *71*(1), 52-70. > > -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 spike66 at att.net Thu Mar 31 15:34:06 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 08:34:06 -0700 Subject: [ExI] robo racecars again Message-ID: <006a01d18b62$c3a45e00$4aed1a00$@att.net> Oh excellent, this is going to be fun: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cC9iGBHAOvE http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2016/03/31/roborace-autonomous-race-car-conce pt-revealed/?utm_campaign=%3Fcmpid%3Drss_latestnews_leisure I am surprised this jumped right up into the big leagues, rather than having ordinary proles trying to build and race robocars first. It is a disappointment in a way. I was hoping to see a low-bucks amateur sport rise up, the way traditional motor sports evolved from amateurs racing at the local track. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From spike66 at att.net Thu Mar 31 19:29:09 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 12:29:09 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bitcoin again Message-ID: <003201d18b83$99f482d0$cddd8870$@att.net> Please I have a question for our local bitcoin hipsters. Imagine a hospital is hacked with ransomware. News agency reports it. Some yahoo demands 10k in bitcoins, hospital pays, nothing happens, so it was a phony offer to unlock. Now will the Feds even bother trying to go after the bad guy? Would they shrug and claim that no money changed hands, that the Fed doesn't recognize bitcoin as currency? http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/03/31/medstar-health-still-suffering-outage s-after-cyberattack.html?intcmp=hplnws So now, any time the news majors announce a hospital has been hacked, the hospital can expect to get jillions of offers to unlock the files for a small amount of bitcoins. It would be impossible for the victim to know which one is genuine, if any. They would have little expectation the government will do anything to catch the bad guy. Any evil plot the good guys can think of, the bad guys can think of too, but more and eviler. I have an idea: create a fictitious health network, give it a name that sounds reasonable enough, such as Vesuvius Health. Make an announcement that a major hack attack has occurred, files locked, Help! Save us, Underdog, etc, create some counterfeit bitcoins (can that be done?) track where the offers to unlock come from and who tries to use the phony bitcoins. Another question, how can you determine that a bitcoin is genuine? I am assuming there is a way. Otherwise, a bad guy could have a bunch of phony bitcoins, hospital is hack attacked, bad guy offers to sell them his bitcoins, they wouldn't know the bitcoins were phony, he makes off with the cash. Another idea: bitcoin hipster makes up a known-phony bitcoin purse, offers to sell them to the hospital for a very modest price after learning from mainstream news sources the hospital has been hack attacked. The hospital doesn't really know how to create phony bitcoins so they give her a few hundred bucks for the traceable counterfeits. She hasn't broken any laws, the hospital hasn't, fair game. Another idea: create a company that offers genuine-looking verifications for traceable phony bitcoins, offer those to the hackers. How does one verify that a bitcoin is genuine now? I don't understand why those kinds of schemes wouldn't work. If they do, the hospital has a vested interest in keeping the hack attack secret from the mainstream media. Oh I am soooo not hip. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From sparge at gmail.com Thu Mar 31 20:14:22 2016 From: sparge at gmail.com (Dave Sill) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 16:14:22 -0400 Subject: [ExI] bitcoin again In-Reply-To: <003201d18b83$99f482d0$cddd8870$@att.net> References: <003201d18b83$99f482d0$cddd8870$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 3:29 PM, spike wrote: > > > Please I have a question for our local bitcoin hipsters. > I'm only a bitcoin dabbler, so nothing I say about it is definitive. Imagine a hospital is hacked with ransomware. > And doesn't have good backups? For shame. > News agency reports it. Some yahoo demands 10k in bitcoins, hospital > pays, nothing happens, so it was a phony offer to unlock. Now will the > Feds even bother trying to go after the bad guy? Would they shrug and > claim that no money changed hands, that the Fed doesn?t recognize bitcoin > as currency? > I don't think so since the hospital was scammed out of real money. So now, any time the news majors announce a hospital has been hacked, the > hospital can expect to get jillions of offers to unlock the files for a > small amount of bitcoins. It would be impossible for the victim to know > which one is genuine, if any. They would have little expectation the > government will do anything to catch the bad guy. > It may be possible to verify that you're dealing with the real bad guys by having them provide details about the attack that only the attackers would know. I have an idea: create a fictitious health network, give it a name that > sounds reasonable enough, such as Vesuvius Health. Make an announcement > that a major hack attack has occurred, files locked, Help! Save us, > Underdog, etc, create some counterfeit bitcoins (can that be done?) track > where the offers to unlock come from and who tries to use the phony > bitcoins. > No, bitcoin is basically unforgeable. Another question, how can you determine that a bitcoin is genuine? > I don't know enough to explain it, but it's part of the design of the bitcoin system. There's no way to create fake bitcoins. > How does one verify that a bitcoin is genuine now? > If you can put it in a wallet, it's genuine. I don?t understand why those kinds of schemes wouldn?t work. If they do, > the hospital has a vested interest in keeping the hack attack secret from > the mainstream media. > > > > Oh I am soooo not hip. > See: https://www.coursera.org/course/bitcointech Which has this link to a Bitcoin textbook: https://d28rh4a8wq0iu5.cloudfront.net/bitcointech/readings/princeton_bitcoin_book.pdf -Dave -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Thu Mar 31 20:19:27 2016 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:19:27 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bitcoin again In-Reply-To: <003201d18b83$99f482d0$cddd8870$@att.net> References: <003201d18b83$99f482d0$cddd8870$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:29 PM, spike wrote: > So now, any time the news majors announce a hospital has been hacked, the > hospital can expect to get jillions of offers to unlock the files for a > small amount of bitcoins. It would be impossible for the victim to know > which one is genuine, if any. All of that is completely false; there are multiple ways to demonstrate effectiveness (the most trivial is decrypting a single file). One particularly interested method is using a zero-knowledge proof of decryption: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/02/26/zero-knowledge-contingent-payments-announcement/ Payment would only be retrievable in the event that the party has a correct proof that they are able to correctly decrypt the files. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From kanzure at gmail.com Thu Mar 31 20:21:29 2016 From: kanzure at gmail.com (Bryan Bishop) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:21:29 -0500 Subject: [ExI] bitcoin again In-Reply-To: <003201d18b83$99f482d0$cddd8870$@att.net> References: <003201d18b83$99f482d0$cddd8870$@att.net> Message-ID: On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:29 PM, spike wrote: > How does one verify that a bitcoin is genuine now? > > The only way to know is to run the Bitcoin program. This was explained in the original Bitcoin whitepaper: https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf As long as the transaction follows all of the rules, and spends a valid Bitcoin as input to the transaction, and the transaction has been "mined" into blocks in the blockchain, then the bitcoin payment is considered successful by the Bitcoin network, consisting of nodes running the Bitcoin software- https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin .. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From atymes at gmail.com Thu Mar 31 20:59:34 2016 From: atymes at gmail.com (Adrian Tymes) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 13:59:34 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bitcoin again In-Reply-To: <003201d18b83$99f482d0$cddd8870$@att.net> References: <003201d18b83$99f482d0$cddd8870$@att.net> Message-ID: On Mar 31, 2016 12:45 PM, "spike" wrote: > Imagine a hospital is hacked with ransomware. News agency reports it. Some yahoo demands 10k in bitcoins, hospital pays, nothing happens, so it was a phony offer to unlock. Now will the Feds even bother trying to go after the bad guy? Would they shrug and claim that no money changed hands, that the Fed doesn?t recognize bitcoin as currency? The Feds recognize it as something of value, whether or not it is "currency" for all definitions thereof. Once again you falsely assume there is anything special about bitcoins, where there really isn't. That said, this is one of the reasons paying ransoms is discouraged: the demanders hold all the power, so they can renege on delivering what the ransom purchased without consequence (barring law enforcement, or equivalent actions). Unlike normal merchants, they have no honor or trust to build value on, given what they did. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From cryptaxe at gmail.com Thu Mar 31 21:16:05 2016 From: cryptaxe at gmail.com (CryptAxe) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 14:16:05 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bitcoin again In-Reply-To: <003201d18b83$99f482d0$cddd8870$@att.net> References: <003201d18b83$99f482d0$cddd8870$@att.net> Message-ID: Running a honeypot hospital would end up with the honeypot having a lot of ransomware attacks, but that wouldn't help you stop the issue as real hospitals will continue to be infected. The only thing hospitals can really do is to properly plan for these events and make secure backups of their data. On Mar 31, 2016 12:45 PM, "spike" wrote: > > > > > > > Please I have a question for our local bitcoin hipsters. > > > > Imagine a hospital is hacked with ransomware. News agency reports it. > Some yahoo demands 10k in bitcoins, hospital pays, nothing happens, so it > was a phony offer to unlock. Now will the Feds even bother trying to go > after the bad guy? Would they shrug and claim that no money changed hands, > that the Fed doesn?t recognize bitcoin as currency? > > > > > http://www.foxnews.com/tech/2016/03/31/medstar-health-still-suffering-outages-after-cyberattack.html?intcmp=hplnws > > > > So now, any time the news majors announce a hospital has been hacked, the > hospital can expect to get jillions of offers to unlock the files for a > small amount of bitcoins. It would be impossible for the victim to know > which one is genuine, if any. They would have little expectation the > government will do anything to catch the bad guy. > > > > Any evil plot the good guys can think of, the bad guys can think of too, > but more and eviler. > > > > I have an idea: create a fictitious health network, give it a name that > sounds reasonable enough, such as Vesuvius Health. Make an announcement > that a major hack attack has occurred, files locked, Help! Save us, > Underdog, etc, create some counterfeit bitcoins (can that be done?) track > where the offers to unlock come from and who tries to use the phony > bitcoins. > > > > Another question, how can you determine that a bitcoin is genuine? I am > assuming there is a way. Otherwise, a bad guy could have a bunch of phony > bitcoins, hospital is hack attacked, bad guy offers to sell them his > bitcoins, they wouldn?t know the bitcoins were phony, he makes off with the > cash. > > > > Another idea: bitcoin hipster makes up a known-phony bitcoin purse, offers > to sell them to the hospital for a very modest price after learning from > mainstream news sources the hospital has been hack attacked. The hospital > doesn?t really know how to create phony bitcoins so they give her a few > hundred bucks for the traceable counterfeits. She hasn?t broken any laws, > the hospital hasn?t, fair game. > > > > Another idea: create a company that offers genuine-looking verifications > for traceable phony bitcoins, offer those to the hackers. > > > > How does one verify that a bitcoin is genuine now? > > > > I don?t understand why those kinds of schemes wouldn?t work. If they do, > the hospital has a vested interest in keeping the hack attack secret from > the mainstream media. > > > > Oh I am soooo not hip. > > > > 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 Mar 31 21:50:27 2016 From: spike66 at att.net (spike) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 14:50:27 -0700 Subject: [ExI] bitcoin again In-Reply-To: References: <003201d18b83$99f482d0$cddd8870$@att.net> Message-ID: <00bd01d18b97$56d24b40$0476e1c0$@att.net> From: extropy-chat [mailto:extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Bryan Bishop Sent: Thursday, March 31, 2016 1:19 PM To: ExI chat list ; Bryan Bishop Subject: Re: [ExI] bitcoin again On Thu, Mar 31, 2016 at 2:29 PM, spike > wrote: So now, any time the news majors announce a hospital has been hacked, the hospital can expect to get jillions of offers to unlock the files for a small amount of bitcoins. It would be impossible for the victim to know which one is genuine, if any. >?All of that is completely false; there are multiple ways to demonstrate effectiveness (the most trivial is decrypting a single file). One particularly interested method is using a zero-knowledge proof of decryption: https://bitcoincore.org/en/2016/02/26/zero-knowledge-contingent-payments-announcement/ Payment would only be retrievable in the event that the party has a correct proof that they are able to correctly decrypt the files. - Bryan http://heybryan.org/ 1 512 203 0507 Cool, so now if a news agency announces that a hospital has been hacked and some yahoo demands bitcoin to unlock the files, they figure out she isn?t the real hacker, they don?t pay and catch her somehow, could not her defense team claim she wasn?t demanding any actual money? If so, could she be convicted of fraudulently? I don?t know where the heck that would land in our legal system. spike -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: From pharos at gmail.com Thu Mar 31 22:11:59 2016 From: pharos at gmail.com (BillK) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 23:11:59 +0100 Subject: [ExI] bitcoin again In-Reply-To: <00bd01d18b97$56d24b40$0476e1c0$@att.net> References: <003201d18b83$99f482d0$cddd8870$@att.net> <00bd01d18b97$56d24b40$0476e1c0$@att.net> Message-ID: On 31 March 2016 at 22:50, spike wrote: > Cool, so now if a news agency announces that a hospital has been hacked and > some yahoo demands bitcoin to unlock the files, they figure out she isn?t > the real hacker, they don?t pay and catch her somehow, could not her defense > team claim she wasn?t demanding any actual money? If so, could she be > convicted of fraudulently? I don?t know where the heck that would land in > our legal system. > Doesn't apply. The hackers are not in the US. If you ever trace some of them, they are probably in a country that doesn't allow extradition to US either. And some may be supported by foreign governments to cause chaos in the US. BillK From danust2012 at gmail.com Thu Mar 31 22:37:17 2016 From: danust2012 at gmail.com (Dan TheBookMan) Date: Thu, 31 Mar 2016 15:37:17 -0700 Subject: [ExI] Why Physics Needs Philosophy In-Reply-To: References: <8EA57ECE-31BA-482A-B80C-413E5D9031E9@gmail.com> Message-ID: <8EF25BF1-2BC4-42E3-9D20-DAF377B3A5AC@gmail.com> On Mar 30, 2016, at 5:37 PM, John Clark wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 30, 2016 Dan TheBookMan wrote: >> > >> ?> ?Let me _stress_ this, since it's being missed: I know only one person who put forth Adler as a serious and important philosopher. > > ?Forget Adler I'm not just talking about him, no philosopher has made a philosophical discovery in centuries, only mathematicians and scientist do that. ? That's doubtful. Theory of reference and intentionality were big topics from the end of the 19th century to today. Truth theory is also a fervent field even today. I think the pros are doing most of the best work in them. >> ?> ?G?del was a philosopher, no? > > ?No. ?Godel was a mathematician who made profound philosophical discoveries, but philosophers are dilettantes ?and Godel was about as far from a dilettante as you can get.? No, he was a philosopher and a mathematician. The two are not mutually exclusive. As for a dilettante, that's not a reasonable characterization of many professionals and others who tend to specialize in particular areas of research -- for example, Maudlin in philosophy of physics or Elliott Sober in philosophy of biology -- or who are fairly rigorous on their approach -- the aforementioned examples. I still get the idea that your view of philosophy is something like seeing some dope at the bar telling what he feels the meaning of life is. There are plenty of folks who do that in any field; they tend to be amateurs or professionals outside their area of specialty. (For example, when Einstein discusses politics and economics, we can easily see his views are rather naive, unoriginal, and fairly conventional among a certain set.) Have you read any philosophy journal articles -- say, something in the Oxford Studies in Metaphysics? How about any recent classics books in the field -- say, Phil Dowe's _Physical Causation_? > Bertrand Russell? said only 3 people on earth had read his and Whitehead?'??s ??MASSIVE book on the foundations of mathematics cover to cover, and Kurt Godel was the third. ? > > Now Ludwig Wittgenstein? was a philosopher no question about it?,? and many?, perhaps most?, say ?he was ?the greatest ?philosopher ?of the 20th century?;? but what philosophic discovery did he make that was in the same league as Godel's triumph? in philosophy??? Wittgenstein was a? pygmy? next to Godel.? Wittgenstein wasn't an example I brought up. And, no, professionals disagree on his stature in the field. >> ?> ?What about Bertrand Russell, > > ?I thing it was Russell who said that when I got too stupid for mathematics I turned to philosophy and when I got too stupid for philosophy I turned to politics. ? He might have said that, though his philosophical work (for example, his work on theory of reference), even some of his greatest philosophical work, came before or at the same time as his work in math. And his work in math was foundational stuff mostly. He wasn't, for the most part, pioneering new areas of math, but attempting to rigorize the field and set it on a logical basis -- a philosophical project of ever there was one. (Of course, attempts to deal with foundational stuff sometimes lead to new areas of research -- as happened with attempts to firm up the basis of analysis eventually led to the while flurry of work ending in set theory, transfinite arithmetic, etc. in some of this, there might be a demarcation problem for what's philosophical and what's not. I think that arises in most fields. For instance, there's a rigorously empirical part of physics and then there's the more speculative stuff and there's also explanatory models. Where does science end and philosophy begin in all that? The line might be hard to draw and there might not be much value in drawing it -- unless one is dissing one part.) Regards, Dan Sample my Kindle books via: http://author.to/DanUst -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: